THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.627 of 2005 AND M.A.C.M.A.NO.1959 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Both appeals arise out of the common accident, in which a claim was made for the death of deceased Donda Bangaramma in O.P.No.1328 of 2001 concerning the appeal MACMA No.1959 of 2011 and for the injuries received by the petitioner/claimant in O.P.No.1327 of 2001 concerning the appeal MACMA No.627 of 2005. The allegations in the claim petitions go to show that on 26-03- 1999 at about 8.30 P.M the deceased and injured person besides some others were transporting vegetables in a van bearing No. AP 31 U 4311 from Anakapalli to Vijayaramarajupeta and on the way the driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and could not control it, as a result, the van turned turtle and the deceased and other persons received injuries and later deceased died. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company who is the appellant in both appeals. The appellant has filed a counter in the claim petitions denying the liability and putting the petitioners to strict proof with regard to nature of the incident and also claim for compensation. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was a goods vehicle and consequently the persons travelling therein are unauthorised gratuitous passengers and they are not liable to pay the compensation. However, the lower Tribunal while rejecting the contentions of the appellant granted a compensation of Rs.75,000/- in O.P.No.1328 of 2001 and a sum of Rs.80,000/- in O.P.No.1327 of 2001. Challenging the said awards, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation as the persons who travelled are unauthorised gratuitous passengers? POINT:- So far as the nature of the incident is concerned and the cause of the injuries, cause of death of the deceased and also the quantum of compensation are concerned, there is not of much dispute by the appellant. In fact, the lower Tribunal after considering the evidence came to a conclusion that the incident was with the fault of the driver of the van. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. The fact that it was a goods vehicle is also not in dispute. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration that the persons who are carrying the goods as owners are not unauthorised persons and they are covered by the risk and consequently the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. In this case, no doubt about the fact that the policy covers the risk of non-fare paid passengers implying that it involves the risk of the owner of the goods who was travelling in the vehicle, but, the question is whether the deceased and injured can claim to be the persons entitled to the benefit of the compensation as being owners of the goods travelling in the goods vehicle. As can be seen from the material available on record, five passengers were travelling in the vehicle and the F.I.R goes to show that they were travelling along with vegetables with them. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased or the injured persons have by themselves engaged the van for transporting of the vegetables. It is also not particularly mentioned as to where from which point the van has started and what was the destination of the van. There is also no material to show that out of the five persons, who are travelling in the van, who was the person that has entered into contract with the owner of the vehicle for transportation of the goods. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, mere casual carrying of some vegetables or any goods by any person cannot be said to be a person travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner of the goods. In this connection, it is useful to refer to a decisions reported in Deddula Padmavathi Vs. Maddala Srinivasa Rao([1]) and Anasuyamma Vs. B.Narsinga Rao([2]). In view of the above circumstances, there being no proof of contract of engaging the vehicle for transportation of the goods by any of the persons who travelled in the van, they cannot be said to be owners of the goods and they are only gratuitous passengers and in view of the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani([3]) the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is represented by the counsel for the appellant that though the half of the amount has been deposited, it was not withdrawn. Consequently, the appellant is entitled for withdrawal of the same and the petitioners shall proceed against the owner of the vehicle for realisation of the compensation. With the above observation, the appeals are allowed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 11-11-2011 TSNR [1] 2004(6) ALT 496 [2] 2008 ACJ 2385 [3] 2003 ACJ 1