THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1892 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the common judgment dated 16.03.2001 in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, consequent on the death of the deceased Gangisetti Varahalu in a motor accident for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was claimed and granted by the lower Tribunal. The case of the claimants shows that the petitioners are the wife and mother of the deceased and on 10.12.1994 at about 4.00 a.m. when the deceased was traveling in the lorry bearing No.ATK 1555 driven by the deceased Venkata Rama Raju, in a rash and negligent driving, turned turtle and the deceased fell down, received injuries and died. The 1st respondent therein was the owner and the appellant herein is the insurance company. The appellant has filed counter disputing the nature of the incident and also the nature of the liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry, who is also deceased, and granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which cannot be said to be excessive. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per the policy under Ex.B-1 and also the evidence of R.W.1, the deceased was traveling in the lorry as a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the same. The lower Tribunal has relied upon some decisions and fastened the liability on the insurance company. But, however, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI[1], the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the gratuitous passenger. It appears that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, part of the compensation has been deposited. Therefore, the claimants shall proceed to recover the balance of amount from the owner of the vehicle and the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount already paid from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 25-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1892 of 2011 DATE: 25-08-2011 MR [1] (2003)2 SCC 223