THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2985 of 2003 Dated 27th January, 2011 Between: Syed Nagoor Basha …Appellant And G. Venkateswarlu and another …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Subbarao Counsel for respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the order dated 28.03.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The petitioner in the O.P. is the appellant in this appeal. He has filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 29.03.1999 involving the lorry bearing registration No.ADF 5117 insured with respondent No.2. The Tribunal, while holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, however, held that the appellant was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and that therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards pain and suffering and medical expenses. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.21,000/- was awarded with interest at 9% p.a. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of the part claim, the appellant filed this appeal. At the hearing, Sri K. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn my attention to the reasoning of the Tribunal contained in the order, wherein it has observed that following the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v Asha Rani[1], the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation for the owner or his representative and also for gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods vehicle consequent on 1994 amendment. The learned counsel submitted that having so observed, the Tribunal has held that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Though I find the observations of the Tribunal as self-conflicting, the law is, however, well settled in Asha Rani (supra), wherein it was held that the passengers travelling in a goods vehicle other than the owner of the goods and also his authorized representative are not entitled for compensation from the insurance company. This position of law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. As such the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation from respondent No.2 – insurance company. No other point has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th January, 2011 GHN [1] (2003) 2 SCC 223 = AIR 2003 SC 607 = 2002 AIR SCW 5259