HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA NO.2338 of 2000: Date:23.12.2009: Between: Padishala Malsoor and another …Appellants And K.Sham Rao and another …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA NO.2338 of 2000: JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P.No.769 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Nalgonda challenging the finding according to which the second respondent insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal from paying compensation to them. 2. The appellants-claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of death of the deceased Padishala Nagesh occurred on 29.10.1996 in a motor vehicle accident wherein the lorry bearing No. ADM-7187, which was proceeding from Nayakunigudem village to Hyderabad was involved. Admittedly, the first respondent is the owner of the lorry and the said vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent- insurance company on the date of the accident. The learned Tribunal having found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver held that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger traveling in the cabin of the lorry which is a goods vehicle, and the second respondent- insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants since traveling of passengers is prohibited in a goods vehicle and the said risk is not covered either under the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy. It is not open for the appellants to challenge the said finding since it is now well established after the decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v ASHARANI AND OTHERS[1] the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation in respect of the injuries sustained or death of the passengers traveling in a goods vehicle since such travel is prohibited under the Act and it is not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the first respondent-owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the appellant. 3. However, the appellants/claimants are labourers belong to a remote village in Khammam District and it is highly difficult for them to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle at this length of time. Following the ratio in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v BALJIT KOUR[2] and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v KUSUM AND OTHERS[3], the 2nd respondent-insurance company is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from the first respondent-owner of the vehicle without instituting a separate suit. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO ,J Date:23.12.2009 ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA NO.2338 of 2000: Date:23.12.2009: [1] 2003(1) ACJ [2] 2004 ACJ428 (SC) [3] 2009 ACJ 2655