HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1940 OF 2005, 488 OF 2011, 3550 OF 2011 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.3941 OF 2011 (M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No.11510 of 2005) COMMON JUDGMENT: All the appeals arise out of a common accident occurred on 03.11.2001. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, on 03.11.2001 the 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.3550 of 2011 and the wife, and two sons of the 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1940 of 2005, 488 of 2011 and MACMA (SR) No.11510 of 2005 were travelling in the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8116 along with others and when the lorry reached the outskirts of S.M.Pet village, the driver of the lorry applied sudden brakes, due to which the iron roller, which was in the lorry, rushed into the cabin and consequently, occupants of the lorry received injuries and three persons died. The 1st respondent is owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company, who has challenged the award. The appellant contended that the injured persons and deceased are gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and consequently, they cannot be held liable. Reliance is also placed on the fact that midway boarding of the lorry cannot be taken into consideration. The lower Tribunal did not accept the said contention and passed the awards as shown below holding that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. Sl.No. O.P.No. MACMA No. Name of the Deceased/ Injured Compensation Claimed (Rs.) Compensation granted (Rs.) 01 82 of 2004 488 of 2011 Bolla Yellamma, 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 82 of 2004 1940 of 2005 B o l l a Sandeep Kumar 60,000/- 60,000/- 84 of 2004 MACMA (SR) No.11510 of 2005 Bolla Srinu 60,000/- 60,000/- 02. 703 of 2004 3550 of 2011 G u n t u r u Rama Koteshwara Rao 1,50,000/- 74,000/- Aggrieved by the said awards, the present appeals are filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal? 4. POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and insurance of the vehicle are concerned, there is not of much dispute. There is also no dispute about the fact that the vehicle is a goods vehicle and the injured and the deceased persons have boarded the lorry to go to Vijayaraghavapur and the petitioner in MACMA No.3550 of 2011 has boarded the lorry to go to Suryapet and therefore, they have nothing to do with the goods that have been carried in the lorry and the purpose for which the lorry was engaged. But, however, the lower Tribunal relying on the decision reported in Natinal Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur and others (2004(1) ALD 98 (SC) and other case held that ‘any person’ includes the third parties travelling in the goods vehicle and consequently, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. The above view of the lower Tribunal is not correct in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court i n New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani[1]. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the award of the lower Tribunal so far as it makes liability of the appellant is concerned, is liable to be set aside and the claimants have to proceed against the owner of the vehicle. However, as per the directions of this Court, the appellant has deposited half of the awarded amounts if that amounts are not withdrawn, the appellant is at liberty to apply for refund of the same. If the amounts are withdrawn, the appellant shall proceed against owner of the vehicle for recovery of the amount and for the balance of compensation, the claimants shall proceed against the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the all appeals are allowed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:30.12.2011 INL [1] 2003(1) ACJ 1