THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD DATED 2nd FEBRUARY OF 2011 C.M.A.NO. 2262 OF 2002 Between: THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., ..... Appellant AND GUNDAREDDY AUDILAKSHMAMMA AND OTHERS .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.NO. 2262 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award, dated 12.11.2001, in O.P. No. 507 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole. 2. Pedda Nagireddy boarded van No.AEE 6215 on 09.04.1995 and when the van reached Pedda Araveedu tank, at about 11.00 A.M, it turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and fell into the tank. Pedda Nagireddy died in the accident leaving his wife and three children, who claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the van. 3. The respondents, in their written statements, denied the alleged rash and negligent driving by the van driver and the other allegations of the claimants and also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. The insurer further stated that the goods vehicle was not intended to carry any passengers and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1, A-2 and B- 1 during the course of the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the eye witness account of P.W.2 as proving the rash and negligent driving of the van driver to be the cause for the accident and Ex. A-1–First Information Report and Ex.A-2-Inquest Report were also referred to in this regard. The uncontroverted claim of P.W.1, the wife, about the claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased was also accepted and the deceased aged 35 years was assessed to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum in the absence of any evidence to prove the income alleged by the claimants. After deducting 1/3rd from such assessed income, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 to the annual loss of dependency at Rs.10,000/- and considered the claimants to be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- including Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss to the estate. The Tribunal also held that while the owner of the van is vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the driver, though the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, in the light of the decision in New India Assurance Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singhi[1], the insurance company cannot be absolved from the liability. Consequently, both the respondents were made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. Further directions were given about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. 6. The insurer filed the present appeal contending that the deceased was a fare-paying passenger in the goods vehicle and his travel was in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the rules made thereunder and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court later in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani[2], the insurer be absolved from the liability. 7. Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for the appellant is heard and none appeared for the claimants during hearing in spite of the matter being posted for the purpose more than once. 8. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the van driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the van with the first respondent and the just and adequate compensation payable at Rs. 1,80,000/- are not in dispute in this appeal and can be considered to have become final. The owner of the vehicle did not enter appearance before this Court and the only question that remains for consideration is the liability of the insurer. 9. The very claim by the claimants is about the deceased Pedda Nagireddy boarding the van paying a fare of Rs.5/-. Pedda Nagireddy was not claimed to be in any manner connected with the van or to be carrying any of his goods in the van and travelling as the owner of such goods or the representative of such owner. The decision of the Apex Court in Satpal Singh’s case (supra 1) was considered to have not laid down the law correctly by the Apex Court in Asha Rani’s case and Asha Rani’s case still holds the field. If so, the insurer cannot be made liable for compensation in the present case. 10. However, as per the interim orders of this Court in C.M.P. No.14778 of 2002, dated 09.08.2002, the appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount with interest and costs and the respondents/claimants were permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The insurer has to be, therefore, granted the relief of realization of such amount from the owner of the vehicle without the necessity of being referred to any suit or other legal proceedings. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs and the award, dated 12.11.2001, in O.P. No.507 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Ongole, is set aside against the appellant and the appellant is entitled to recover the amount deposited by it to the credit of the matter from the first respondent to the claim petition without the necessity of filing any separate suit or any other legal proceedings. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 02.02.2011 SP/ KL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.NO. 2262 OF 2002 02-02-2011 SP/ KL [1] AIR 2000 SC 235 [2] AIR 2003 SC 607