THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2114 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the dismissal of the claim against the Insurance Company. A claim for Rs.2 lakh was made consequent on the death of Dastagiri who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 in a motor accident on 17- 08-2005. As can be seen from the claim petition, the deceased went to Alamkhanupalli along with a marriage party in connection with marriage of his cousin in the lorry bearing AAQ 705 and after the marriage he was returning along with two bags of rice and due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the vehicle turned turtle and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim was made and the first respondent remained ex parte and the Insurance Company contended that there is no liability from the admitted fact that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The lower Tribunal has considered the nature of the evidence and determined the compensation at Rs.1,69,000/- payable by the first respondent against which there is no appeal. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the lower Tribunal has failed to notice that the deceased was carrying two bags of rice in the lorry and therefore he is the owner of the goods travelling in the lorry and consequently the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. This contention of the appellant cannot hold good for the reason that even the allegation in the petition goes to show that a marriage party has gone in the lorry on 16-08-1995 and they were returning in the same lorry on 17-08-1995 when the incident was happened. It is not the case of the petitioners that the lorry was engaged for transportation of the goods. On the other hand, it was clear that the lorry was engaged for transporting of the passengers for the marriage. Even if for any reason the claim of the appellants that the deceased was carrying two bags of rice is to be accepted, still it is not a case of travel of the owner of the goods in the lorry. A casual carrying of the goods is not engagement of goods vehicle, for which it was insured and the material on record clearly shows that it is a clear case of violation of conditions of policy and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani & Others([1]) and when the purpose for which the vehicle was engaged is apparently not covered under the risk, the lower Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 16-09-2011 TSNR [1] 2003 ACJ 1