THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3158 of 2000 And XOBJSR.No.24935 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: One Mr.Vijaya Bhaskar Chowdary, an Advocate practicing at Kurnool proceeded to Nellore to participate in an Inter- District tournament along with his colleagues on 23.10.1992. In their return journey from Nellore to Kurnool in a car bearing No.CAT 6118 (re-numbered as ‘AP1 5517’) owned by the 8th respondent, driven by the 7th respondent and insured with the appellant, when they reached Nellorepalem junction, an A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AEZ 2174 is said to have dashed against the car, resulting in the death of Chowdary. Crime No.80 of 1992 was registered by P.S.Atmakur. The wife, daughter and mother of the deceased, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed O.P.No.86 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Nellore claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under different heads. The 9th respondent herein was added as a party to the O.P. stating that she is the second wife of the deceased. The O.P. was opposed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. as well as the appellant. The A.P.S.R.T.C. pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the car. The appellant on the other hand pleaded that the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus alone was responsible for the accident and that no liability can be fastened upon it, since the deceased was traveling as a passenger in a car and though a mere Act policy was taken, the vehicle was used for hire. Through its order, dated 12.04.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,01,500/- and apportioned the same among the dependants of the deceased. The appellant challenges the same. Respondents 1 to 3 on the other hand filed Cross Objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. Heard Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for respondents 4 to 6. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were filed. On behalf of respondents and 4 to 8 and the appellant herein, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.20 were filed. The death of the deceased occurred on account of collision between the car and bus. The police registered, no doubt, a crime against the driver of the bus alone. However, the Tribunal has taken into account, the oral and documentary evidence before it and held that the drivers of the car on the one hand and the bus on the other hand are equally liable for the accident. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was an Advocate and even according to respondents 1 to 3, he was earning a sum of Rs.1,600/- per month through profession. Though it was pleaded that he was earning Rs.4,500/- from agriculture, nothing was placed before the Tribunal in support of the same. The income that is pleaded by respondents 1 to 3 was taken into account and applying the relevant multiplier, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.1,92,000/-. The 1st respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. This Court does not find any excessive assessment of the income of the deceased. Though respondents 1 to 3 prayed for enhancement of the compensation, the evidence on record does not support their plea. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal as to the quantum of compensation is also affirmed. The serious dispute is about the liability of the appellant herein to pay the compensation. The Tribunal held that the appellant on the one hand and the A.P.S.R.T.C. on the other hand are liable to pay 50% of the compensation each. The principal ground urged by the appellant is that the vehicle was used for hire and it was covered only with Act policy. There is some scope for argument in this regard. With the omission of proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted, substantial change as to the coverage of insurance had emerged. In New India Assurance C. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh[1], the Hon’ble supreme Court took the view that with the omission of the said proviso, even a standard policy, without payment of any additional premium, would cover the liability that arises towards any persons, who are traveling in the vehicle, including the goods vehicle. This Judgment, insofar as it held that the insurance policy would cover the liability towards passengers in goods vehicle, was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani[2]. In the instant case, the question is about the liability of the owner of the vehicle and thereby that of the insurer towards the inmates of a non-goods vehicle. Though in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh[3], an observation was made to the effect that the ratio in the judgment in Asha Rani’s case (2 supra) would apply to all categories of vehicles, the matter is now said to be pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this scenario, this Court is of the view that the appellant herein can be required to comply with Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act i.e., pay amount and recover from the owner, if it is otherwise entitled to. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed, upholding the order passed by the Tribunal and directing that it shall be open to the appellant to pay and recover and Cross Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 29.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3158 of 2000 And XOBJSR.No.24935 of 2007 Date: 29.12.2011 JSU [1] 2000 ACJ 1 [2] 2003 ACJ 1 [3] 2006 ACJ 1441