THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1502 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.935 of 1997. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that on 11.06.1997 he was travelling in a Allwyn Nissan Van bearing No.AP 1 T 5141 towards Nizamabad from Dharamaram and when he was about to get down at Nizamabad, the driver of the Van stopped and while the petitioner was getting down, it was suddenly started, as a result of which, he received injuries after the fall. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the liability and also putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligent. It was also specifically pleaded that the petitioner was a traveller in a goods vehicle and the policy does not cover the risk. After considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documents, the Tribunal has fixed the liability to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and passed the award. 4. So far as the nature of the incident is concerned, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 supported by Exs.A.1 to A.4 shows that the petitioner received injuries in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Nissan Van. The fact that the petitioner was travelling in the Van is also admitted. Even though the incident happened while he was getting down from the Van his travel in a Goods vehicle cannot be disputed. Since he did not get down from the Van of the incident so as to the third party to the vehicle, the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is based on the injuries. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 5. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, evidently it is a Goods vehicle and in view of the Judgment reported in New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani[1], the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount for the gratuitous passenger. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, though the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be fixed, however as per the directions of this Court, the appellant has deposited half of the insurance amount and the petitioners can withdraw it and for the balance they can proceed against the owner of the vehicle. The insurance Company is also at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the amount already deposited in the lower Tribunal in pursuance of the directions of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 12.07.2011 INL [1] 2003(2) SCC 223