1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.10.2010, in M.V.O.P.No.572 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court, S.P.S.R. Nellore, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. None appeared for the 5th respondent though served with notice. Memo filed stating that notice on the 5th respondent was served. Perused the record.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of the deceased-Kunam Ravindra Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.01.2004. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased boarded a lorry bearing No.AP 31U 2849 at Ongole to go to Kavali and on the way, one Syed Khadar Basha boarded the lorry at Ulavapadu and when the vehicle reached the outskirts of Chagellu village, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the deceased-Ravindra Reddy and Khadar Basha died on the spot and others received injuries. A case in Cr.No.5 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing cultivation and earning Rs.3000/- per month.

4. 5th respondent herein-owner of the vehicle was set ex parte. Appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability, inter alia, on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the policy does not cover the risk in respect of such person and therefore the appellant-insurer is not liable for payment of compensation.

5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the respondents herein. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer.

6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. The Tribunal further directed that the appellant-insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously challenged, as also the quantum of compensation awarded. The main contention of the appellant-insurer is that as the deceased was admittedly a gratuitous passenger, travelling in the lorry, appellant-insurer is not liable to pay compensation as the policy-Ex.B1 does not cover the risk of such person.

7. Even in the claim application, it is averred that on that day the deceased boarded the lorry at Ongole to go to Kavali. Admittedly, the deceased was not accompanying any goods in the said vehicle. He was only a midway passenger, who boarded the lorry at Ongole to get down at Kavali. In Ex.A1-First Information Report; EX.A2-inquest report and Ex.A4-charge sheet also, it is stated that the deceased boarded the lorry as a passenger. As seen from the charge sheet, the lorry was proceeding from Vijayawada to Bangalore with plywood and some agricultural plastic pipes and the deceased boarded the vehicle as a midway passenger to travel from Ongole to Kavali. Admittedly, the policy-Ex.B1 does not cover the risk of any passenger in a goods vehicle. The lorry is admittedly a non-transport goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger, whose risk is not covered by the policy-Ex.B1.

8. In acatena of decisions, the apex Court held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of gratuitous or unauthorized passenger in