These four CMAs arise out of the common order dated 30-8-2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, in MVOP Nos.262 of 1998 and 466 of 1999.

2. On 30-10-1997, a mini lorry bearing No.KA-01-5083, owned by Sri Ramadas Motor Transport Limited (SRMT), and insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, dashed against another lorry bearing No.ABC-4570, near Nalagampalle village of Chittoor District. The lorry was owned by one Veerabhadraiah, and it was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Two persons, by name Arun Kumar and Gangadharam (for short "the claimants"), who were travelling in the mini lorry, sustained injures. They filed MVOP Nos.262 of 1998 and 466 of 1999, respectively, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, respectively, against the respondents impleaded in the O.Ps. Through the common order dated 30-8-2004, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- to Arun Kumar, and Rs.20,000/- to Gangadharam, as compensation. Arun Kumar filed CMA No.4522 of 2004, and Gangadharam filed CMA No.1494 of 2006, seeking enhancement of the compensation. M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, for short "the insurer", of the mini lorry, owned by SRMT, filed CMA Nos.1495 and 1496 of 2006, assailing the very fastening of the liability upon them.

3. The claimants pleaded that they were waiting at Katappagaripalle crossroad bus stop, at about 6 p.m., and they boarded in the mini lorry, to go to Bangarupalyam. They alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry, it dashed against another lorry bearing No.ABC-4170, coming in the opposite direction, at Nalagampalle cross road. They described the nature of injuries sustained by them and claimed the compensation, as referred to above.

4. The SRMT filed counter affidavit in both the Ops., and pleaded that the injuries sustained by the claimants were simple in nature, and that the claim made by them is excessive. It was also pleaded that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of other lorry. The actual contest of the matter was by the insurer.

5. The Insurer filed a separate counter affidavit, and denied the allegations that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. It disputed the nature of injuries, as well as the expenditure said to have been incurred by the claimants for treatment. During the course of arguments, a plea was raised by the insurer to the effect that the claimants were passengers in a goods vehicle, and as such, it cannot be liable to pay the compensation.

6. The Tribunal held that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. It relied upon the admission of guilt, by the driver of the said lorry, in Crime No.145 of 1997. As regards the plea of the insurer that it is not liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal took the view that the owner of the said vehicle paid extra amount of premium, to cover the liability towards non-fare paid passengers, and in that view of the matter, it cannot avoid its liability, to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

7. In the matter of determining the compensation to be awarded to the claimants, the Tribunal took into account, the nature of injuries, expenditure incurred for curing of the same, and other related matters, and awarded the amounts specified above.

8. Smt. I. Mammu Vani, learned counsel for the insurer, submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Ajit Kumar and others and the other judgments rendered subsequent thereto, an insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation for the injuries to, or death of a passenger, in a goods vehicle. She submits that what was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle, and that th