HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.261 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.2, against the order in O.P. No.275 of 1999 dated 18-05-2001 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. Appellant, National Insurance Company Limited, is respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are claimants and respondent Nos.3 and 4, owners of the lorry, are respondent No.1 and 3 in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: Claimants are parents of the deceased Harijana Erupapuram Anjaneyulu. According to their case, deceased, who was 27 years old, was resident of Kalchetla Village of Dhone Taluk and was doing agricultural work in his own lands. While so, on 21-05-1997 at about 10-30 AM, while the deceased was travelling in the lorry bearing No.AAQ – 3159, belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 3, to go to Gooty along with Mango bags to sell them at Gooty, 4 K.Ms. away from Peapully village, Gooty road, as the driver of the lorry drove the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control over the lorry and on account of the same, lorry fell in a pit killing the deceased on the spot. Hence, claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under various heads. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3, owners of the lorry, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 – appellant, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 21.5.97 resulting in the death of the deceased viz., Harijana Erupapuram Anjaneyulu and if so was it due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AAQ.3159 by its driver ? 2. Whether R.1’s lorry was insured with R.2 Insurance Company and if so does that policy cover the risk of the deceased ? 3. Whether claimants are entitled for compensation and if so at what quantum and what is the liability of R.1 and R.2 ? 4. To what relief ? 7. To substantiate their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy. 8. Based on the evidence on record, though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- towards loss of dependency alone, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants, as they claimed only Rs.1,50,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum making all the respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, insurance company filed this appeal. 9. Though several grounds are raised, learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company mainly contends that the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle, as such, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the goods i.e., Mangos to be transported to the market at Gooty, as such, he was owner of the goods, and therefore, insurance company is liable for payment of compensation as held by the Tribunal. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal ? 12. With regard to quantum of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, there is no serious dispute. But, as already referred, the main question is whether the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. Though it is the contention of the insurance company that the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle, there is no material to show the same. No witness is examined on behalf of the insurance company. On the other hand, evidence of PW.1 shows that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the goods i.e., Mangos. As there is no other evidence to rebut the question of deceased travelling in the lorry along with the goods as owner of the same (goods), I am inclined to accept that the deceased was travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods. In view of the same, it has to be held that respondent No.2 – insurance company is also liable for payment of compensation along with respondent Nos.1 and 3, owners of the lorry. 13. Accordingly, as there appears to be some mistake in the decree saying that only respondent Nos.1 and 3 are liable, once again it is made clear that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. In view of the above, I see no grounds to allow this appeal, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal in all respects. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 2, 2010. PV