HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3134 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation awarded in O.P. No.364 of 1997 dated 18-11-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Ongole, the National Insurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2 is owner of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AEE –2666 and 2667 involved in the accident. 3. The case of the clamant before the Tribunal is that on 04-02-1997 at 6-00 PM, near Santhanuthalapadu, while he was travelling in the tractor-trailer bearing No.AEE – 2666 & 2667 as a coolie for loading and unloading sand, driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and lost control over the vehicle, as a result, tractor turned turtle and the claimant fell down and the tractor fell on him and on account of that he sustained serious multiple injuries on the head, neck involving fracture of ribs, left leg involving fracture of thigh bone etc. He was a labourer and he used to earn Rs.50/- a day. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The owner of the tractor-trailer remained ex parte and insurer of the tractor-trailer alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner had received injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.A.E.E. 2666 and 2667 respectively by its driver? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 6. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant against both the respondents for payment of compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved of the same, insurance company alone preferred this appeal challenging its liability for payment of compensation to the claimant. 8. Now contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company, appellant, is that at the time of accident claimant was travelling on the tractor-trailer as a gratuitous passenger but not as a coolie for loading and unloading the sand, as such, in view of a Full Bench decision of the Apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI[1], whereby earlier decision of the Apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. V. SATPAL SINGH[2] was overruled, claimant is not entitled to any compensation from the insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that claimant was travelling on the tractor-trailer as a coolie for loading and unloading the sand, as such, he was not a gratuitous passenger on the vehicle, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation and the insurance company is liable to pay the same. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the FIR given by the claimant himself shows that he was travelling in the tractor-trailer as a passenger, and therefore, referring himself as a coolie travelling in the tractor-trailer for loading and unloading the sand in the claim petition made by him is only an after thought to get compensation. Thus, it is clear that claimant was travelling in the tractor-trailer as a passenger but not as a coolie for loading and unloading the sand, and therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. However, considering the position of the claimant, who was a labourer, it is directed that the compensation already paid/deposited by the insurance company shall not be recovered from the claimant, but it can recover the same from the owner of the tractor-trailer and the claimant also can recover the remaining compensation from the owner of the tractor-trailer without filing the suit. 13. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 24, 2010. PV [1] (2003) 2 SCC 223 [2] 92000 ) 1 SCC 237