HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1436 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in O.P.No.245 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. A claim was made for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Parimi Ranga Rao while travelling in the lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 4059 from Vijayawada to Tirupathi. He was said to be travelling in the lorry with goods. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the vehicle turned turtle , as a result of which, the deceased received injuries and died. The petitioners are the dependants on him. Respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent, who is the appellant herein, denied the liability to pay the compensation and contended that there is violation of conditions of the policy and the driver has no licence. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record, found the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and assessed the compensation and granted the same as Rs.1,44,800/-. The claimants have not disputed the above quantum. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the policy is in the name of the 3rd respondent and the deceased was travelling in the lorry as a passenger and therefore, there is no liability. The lower Court relied on a decision reported in New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh and others (AIR 1999 SCW 4337) and fastened the liability to the Insurance Company. But, however, the fact remains that the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods is not proved and he was only a traveller in the goods vehicle. The decision relied on by the lower Tribunal is no longer good law in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani and others[1] AND M/s. National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Baljit Kaur and others[2]. 4. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed insofar as the liability of the appellant is concerned and the appellant is held not liable to pay any amount under the award. If the appellant has paid any amount in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:16.09.2011 INL [1] AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 607(1) [2] AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1340(1)