APHC010450602004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the sixteenth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4613 of 2004 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ...Appellant and Setikam Apparao and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. V. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: 1. D. Ramalinga Swamy The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4613 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the award and the decree, dated 08.09.2004, in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, by the respondent No. 3 therein. 2. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein / claimants before the Tribunal filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of Smt. Setikam Chandramma (herein after referred as deceased) as the claimant No.1 is the husband and the claimant No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased. 3. As per the case of the claimants, on 13.07.1998, the deceased and some others boarded lorry bearing No.AP 37 /T 2322 by paying Rs.50/- per head to the respondent No.1 who was driving the lorry of the respondent No.2, insured by the respondent No.3 and at about 3.30 a.m. On 14.07.1998, as the respondent No.1 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and was sleeping at times, he lost control over the vehicle and caused the accident. As a result, the vehicle fell down by the side of the road. Thus, the deceased received grievous and multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The police of Alamuru registered a case in Cr.No.62 of 1998 under sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. 4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The respondent No.3 / insurance company denied the liability by filing a written statement, specifically pleading that the deceased and others were gratuitous passengers and policy of insurance did not cover the liability. 3 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4613 of 2004 5. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted before the Tribunal that there is no obligation covering policy of insurance under section 147 of the M.V.Act in respect of the passengers in a goods carriage and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajit Kumar and others1 wherein it was held that the expression “goods vehicle” used in the old Act, 1940 is different from the expression “goods carriage” used in the new Act, i.e., Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’) and that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, 1988 makes it clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and the employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and further the compulsory coverage is against death or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle, but there is no coverage of risk to any passenger in goods carriage. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the decision of full bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur and others2, wherein it was held that the expression “owner of the goods or his representatives” is used in section 147 of the M. V. Act, 1988 and that the expression “any person” does not include gratuitous passenger and consequently the insurance policy issued in respect of “goods vehicle” would not cover “gratuitous passengers” and in such a case the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation. 1 2003 SAR (Civil)757 2 2004(1) Decisions Today (SC) 32 4 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4613 of 2004 6. Having discussed the defence taken by the insurance company, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and the decisions referred by him in clear terms, the Tribunal recorded that according to the above decisions, the insurer is also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners along with the driver and owner of the insured vehicle, but the insurer can recover the amount from the owner of the insured vehicle. Accordingly, the claim was allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- payable with costs and interest @ 1.5 % from the date of petition till the date of realisation, with joint and several liability of the respondents Nos.1 to 3, however, permitting the respondent No.3 / insurance company to recover the said amount from the respondent No.2. 7. Aggrieved by the decree and the award, this appeal was filed mainly contending against the liability. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same contention as noted above. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 & 2 herein submitted that the Tribunal had rightly fastened the liability on the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and yet permitted the respondent No.3 / appellant to recover the amount from the respondent No.2 / owner of the vehicle, and therefore, there is no need to interfere in this appeal. 10. The main contention of the appellant was that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. As can be seen from the contentions and evidence, the deceased was a paid passenger and not a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, at the most, it may be a violation of terms of policy, due to which the Tribunal rightly allowed the appellant to recover the amount from the insured. As such, there is no merit in the appeal. 5 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4613 of 2004 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 16.02.2026 GRL / RAR