THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2923 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.06.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur, West Goddavari District, wherein the appeal filed by the appellant, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.72,600/- as against the respondents 1 and 2-driver and owner of the vehicle and dismissing the claim as against the 3rd respondent-insurance company. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of her son- deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.08.1999 near Velagaleru of West Godavari District. Respondents 1 and 2-driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. 3rd respondent filed counter opposing the claim and denying the liability, inter alia on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a passenger and therefore the insurance company is not liable. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondents and Ex.X1 was also marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The Tribunal estimated the compensation payable at Rs.72,600/- and passed award against the respondents 1 and 2 and exonerated the 3rd respondent-insurer from the liability, holding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 6. A perusal of Ex.A1-First Information Report would disclose that on that day, claimant, her son-deceased and others went to Varighedu to perform pooja in the temple and while they were returning in a tractor and trailor, the accident occurred. The evidence of P.W.1 is also to the same effect. From the evidence adduced by the claimant herself, it is clear that the deceased, along with the claimant is travelling in the tractor as a passenger while returning from the temple back home. It is therefore not a case where the deceased was employed to work on the tractor. Admittedly, the policy does not cover the risk of any such unauthorized or gratuitous passenger. 7. It is now well settled that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in the case of death or injury to the gratuitous or unauthorized passenger whose risk is not covered by the policy and no premium is collected for covering such a risk. 8. I n NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD v. ASHA RANI[1] and UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. TILAK SINGH AND OTHERS[2], it was held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. 9. In a decision in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. BOMMITHI SUBBAYAMMA AND OTHERS”[3], the apex Court held as follows: “Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people” 10. In view of the principles laid down in the above cases, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer from the liability to pay the compensation as the deceased is shown to be travelling in the tractor as an unauthorized gratuitous passenger whose risk is not covered by the policy. The impugned order, dismissing the claim application insofar as the 3rd respondent-insurer is concerned, does not therefore call for any interference. 11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd August, 2011 Tsy [1] 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) [2] 2006 ACJ 1441 [3] 2005(2) ACJ 721 (SC)