THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1991 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard. 3. Challenging the order and decree, dated 28.01.2003, passed by the I Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.1096 of 1998, awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein, in a road accident that occurred on 02.11.1997, involving the van bearing No.AP 16T-6877, the United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Admittedly, the first respondent herein-claimant is an unauthorized passenger in the said van. The Tribunal, obviously, applying the principle laid down the Apex Court i n NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SATPAL SINGH[1], awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. But, now the law is well settled that the principle laid down in Satpal Singh’s case (1 supra) is no longer in force and in its place the principle laid down in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. ASHA RANI[2], case is in force, according to which, an unauthorized passenger does not fall within the category of “any person” and therefore, he is not entitled to get redeemed by the insurance company for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the firs respondent-claimant that half of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was already withdrawn by the claimant pursuant to the interim order, dated 07.11.2003, passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.26265 of 2003. In view of the same, the insurer can recover the amount, which was withdrawn by the claimant, from the owner of the vehicle. On the other hand, the claimant is at liberty to recover the balance amount of the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down in Asha Rani’s case, the appeal is liable to be allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order and decree, dated 28.01.2003, passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the insurance company can recover the amount which was already deposited by it and was withdrawn by the claimant, from the owner of the vehicle, and that the claimant is at liberty to recover the balance amount of the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 5th August 2010 dr [1] 2000 ACJ 1 (SC) [2] 2003 ACJ 1 (SC)