HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2395 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent against the order in M.V.O.P.No.397 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah, questioning the liability. A claim was made for Rs.80,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased N.Gangulaiah, who is husband of the claimant. According to the case of the petitioner, on 29.03.2001 her husband Gangulaiah boarded the lorry bearing No.ADD 3555 at Madanapalli to go to Rayachoty. When the lorry reached near Chinnamondem, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and applied sudden brakes in a turning, due to which the steel rolls just turtle and fallen upon the said Gangulaiah, resulting which he died. The 1st respondent, who is owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company. The Insurance Company contended that the nature of the accident pleaded by the petitioner and the nature of the dependency and earning capacity of the deceased have to be established. Further-more, the deceased is only a gratuitous passenger and there is no liability to the Insurance Company. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, held that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.70,500/-. It also accepted that the deceased boarded the lorry as the driver and cleaner were known to him and thereby holding that he is a gratuitous passenger. Ex.B.1 Policy was relied upon by the lower Tribunal to hold that non- fair paying non-employee was also covered by the risk as a sum of Rs.50/- was collected. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the coverage of that risk is limited only to the owner of the goods but not to gratuitous passengers. Evidently, when once the vehicle is found to be a goods vehicle, the coverage of an unauthorised passenger does not arise. It can only be with regard to the employee on the vehicle or to the owner of the goods. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has not properly considered the scope of the coverage under the Policy and erred in fixing the liability on the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the liability of the appellant is excluded and the amount shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23.09.2011 INL