HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3403 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in O.P.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. 2. A claim was made for the death of the deceased Chandra Rao in a motor accident. It was alleged that on 05.07.2000 the deceased boarded the lorry bearing No.AP 5 T 1625 at Rajanagaram along with baskets of Neredu fruits and his cycle in order to go to Samalkot. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, it turned turtle. Consequently, the said Chandra Rao fell down from the lorry and was crushed by the lorry and died. The petitioners, who are his legal representatives, have filed the petition claiming compensation. The petition against the 1st respondent was dismissed for non- prosecution. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition and contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the transport vehicle, therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the contentions, granted a compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- and also held the Insurance Company liable. 3. The point for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation? 4. POINT: From the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the lorry was going with sand load and from the very nature of the allegations in the petition, it is quite clear that the deceased has boarded on the lorry along with cycle and baskets of fruits, thereby showing that he has not engaged the lorry for himself for transportation of his goods and he has casually boarded the lorry on the way and therefore, he cannot be said to be a owner of the goods travelling in the lorry. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of this Court reported in Vachala Vs V.R.Kumar[1] and also a decision reported National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & others[2]. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 5. However, it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the directions of this Court half of the decretal amount has been paid and permitted to be withdrawn. The Insurance Company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and the claimants are entitled to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the balance of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date: 07.12.2011 INL [1] 2004(5) ALT 460 [2] 2008(1) ACJ 268