THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1540 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company disputing the order dated 17.10.2003 in M.V.O.P. No.988 of 1999, whereunder consequent on the death of the deceased Jayamma while she was traveling in a lorry bearing No.AP-7V-2868 on 23.06.1998 at 5.00 PM. The incident is said to have been happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the deceased was said to be earning about Rs.15,000/- per month as a labourer and the claim was made for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-appellant herein filed counter disputing the nature of the incident, nature of the liability and also the claim for compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- fastening the liability on the appellant and also the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the material on record shows that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was traveling. So far as the earning capacity of the deceased and also her contribution to the family are concerned, evidently, the deceased is said to be aged about 40 years and the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- taking her income as Rs.15,000/- per annum and after applying the due multiplier, fixed the compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-. I do not think that the compensation arrived at by the lower Tribunal is excessive or against the settled principles of fixing of the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that, evidently, the deceased was traveling as a marriage party in a goods vehicle and in view of the judgment reported in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI[1], the Insurance Company is not liable and further claim of the petitioners that the deceased was employed as a cleaner of the vehicle, which was accepted by the lower Tribunal, is erroneous. In view of the fact that the lorry itself is said to have been carrying the marriage party, which is a goods vehicle. The employment of a lady as a cleaner for the lorry is too remote to be accepted with any reason. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was employed as a labourer and cleaner cannot be accepted and she was traveling in the lorry along with the marriage party and is a gratuitous passenger and hence the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. However, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the appellant has deposited half of the amount, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the further liability is not enforceable against the appellant and the petitioners are directed to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the balance of the compensation amount and the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the amount already paid. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 27-07-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1540 of 2011 DATE: 27-07-2011 MR [1] (2003)2 SCC 223