IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.956 OF 2009 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Sanga Reddy, Medak. …Appellant A n d Nangi Mysaiah and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.956 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 08- 04-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.965 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III-Additional District Judge) (F.T.C), Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the claim application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Nangi Narsimhulu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19-06-2004. The claimants are parents of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was travelling in a tractor as agricultural labourer along with one Manne Rajaiah and when the tractor reached Pedda Cheruvu vagu, the driver lost control over the vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving and the tractor overturned and the deceased died on the spot due to injuries. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was aged 18 years and was doing agriculture and labour work and was getting income of Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. The third respondent owner of the tractor and the appellant herein filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP 25 G 278 by its driver? ii. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what just amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 7. On a consideration of the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,21,500/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver is not seriously challenged. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even according to the claimants, the deceased was an agricultural labourer and he was travelling in the tractor as a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, as the risk in respect of the deceased was not covered by the policy. 8. Admittedly, the policy-Ex.B-1 was an Act policy and the risk of only the third parties is covered. A perusal of Ex.B-1 copy of the policy would show that it was farmer’s package insurance and no separate premium is paid covering the risk of any passengers. In fact, the vehicle was not meant for carrying any passengers and it was meant for use in connection with agricultural purpose. Admittedly, no seating is provided for anyone, except the driver. Even assuming for a moment that the tractor was being used for agriculture purpose as deposed by P.W.3 who stated that at that time the tractor was being taken for ploughing the land of one Manne Rajaiah, still the travel of the deceased by the said tractor is unauthorized. 9. In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED V. ASHA RANI[1], a three-Judge bench of the Apex Court while overruling the earlier decision in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED V. SATPAL SINGH[2] held that the insurer will not be liable for payment of compensation in respect of the death or injury to unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The ratio laid down in Asha Rani’s case (1 supra) was subsequently followed and reiterated by the Apex Court in a number of decisions wherein it was held that a person travelling in a vehicle used for carrying goods/agricultural purpose is not entitled to claim compensation from the insurance company though such passenger is entitled to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 10. Following the said decisions of the Apex Court, in a recent decision, this Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED V. GADA MANGAMMA AND OTHERS[3] held that a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle or vehicle used for agricultural purpose, is not covered by the policy and third party claim for the death or injury of such gratuitous passenger is not maintainable. Following the dicta of the Apex Court in Asha Rani’s case (1 supra) and various other decisions of the Apex Court and this Court wherein the above principle was reiterated, which are referred to in Gada Mangamma’s case (3 supra), it must be held that the claim of respondents 1 and 2 for the death of their son who was only a gratuitous passenger in the tractor and whose risk is not covered by the policy Ex.B-1, is not maintainable as against the appellant-insurer. It is open to respondents 1 and 2 to recover the amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle, the third respondent. However, having regard to the fact that respondents 1 and 2 are poor and illiterate villagers, it is directed that the amount, if any, already paid to the claimant pursuant to the award shall not be recovered from them and the appellant- insurer is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle if so advised. The claimants are entitled to recover the balance amount of the award from the owner of the vehicle. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th June, 2011 Lrkm [1] AIR 2003 SC 607 [2] AIR 2000 SC 235 [3] 2010 (3) ALD 75