Judgment : 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in these two miscellaneous appeals. The appellant disputes its liability to compensation amount awarded in these two awards in question, on the ground that claims of the claimants in these two cases are not covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy issued by the appellant to owner of lorry which was involved in this accident while transporting a proclainer in body of that lorry. At this stage, there is no dispute of facts to the effect that Tripper Trailer Lorry bearing No.AP 27 T 6436 was transporting a proclainer from Ellareddigudem towards Guntur and that operator of the Proclainer by name Netala Raju was sitting in Cabin of that Lorry and that Simchalam and Kovvuri Ramana who were Supervisor and Helper on the Proclainer were sitting in the Proclainer which was loaded in the Trailor of the lorry and that the lorry with trailor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of that lorry by its driver and that Simhachalam and Ramana fell under the proclainer and died on the spot and that operator Netala Raju and driver of the lorry sustained injuries. Dependents of the two deceased persons viz., Simhachalam and Ramana are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry in M.V.O.P.Nos.574 and 575 of 2003. After due enquiry in which P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 marked, the lower tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- and Rs.2,08,800/- to the claimants in the respective claims against driver, owner and the insurer (appellant herein) of the accident lorry. No appeals are filed by the claimants or owner of the lorry. 2. The appellant’s counsel contended that the two deceased persons viz., Simhachalam and Ramana were unauthorised passengers in the accident lorry and that therefore, the insurance- company is not liable to indemnify the lorry owner as claims relating to deaths of unauthorised passengers or even fare paid passengers are not covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy. 2. The appellant’s counsel contended that the two deceased persons viz., Simhachalam and Ramana were unauthorised passengers in the accident lorry and that therefore, the insurance- company is not liable to indemnify the lorry owner as claims relating to deaths of unauthorised passengers or even fare paid passengers are not covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy. On the other hand, it is contended by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that both the deceased were travelling in the accident lorry as agents of owner of the goods i.e., proclainer being transported in the accident lorry and that therefore, claims relating to their deaths are covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy and that the appellant insurance-company cannot absolve its liability to pay compensation. 3. Ex.B-1 is a comprehensive insurance policy covering own damage as well as third party liability. It shows that apart from basic premium under third party liability, the lorry owner paid separate premium covering risk of two drivers and one cleaner apart from one authorised non-fare paying passenger under Endorsement-14 of the policy. The relevant clause in the policy reads as follows: “IMT 14. LEGAL LIABILITY TO NON-FARE PAYING PASSENGERS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE INSURED. In consideration of the payment of an additional premium as stated in the Scheduled and not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-I( c ) it is hereby understood and agreed that the Company will indemnify the insured against liability and than liability under statute (except Fatal Accident Act, 1855) in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is (a) the Charter or Representative of the Charter of the Truck (b) Any person directly connected with the journey in one form or another being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle described in the Schedule of the Policy.” Having regard to the said clause in respect of which specific premium is paid for one authorised non-fare paying passenger, it has to be seen whether risk of the two deceased who were admittedly travelling in body of the lorry by sitting inside the proclainer which was being transported by the accident lorry, is also covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy. Ex.B-1 covers risk of only one such person which comes within the above clause. Ex.B-1 covers risk of only one such person which comes within the above clause. Whereas the accident lorry was not only transporting the proclainer but also carrying three persons including the two deceased persons in it as passengers. 4. This Court is of the opinion that controversy in this case is fairly covered by decisions rendered by the Apex Court. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Bommithi Subbhayamma 2005 ACJ 721, the Supreme Court after referring to eight earlier reported decisions of that Court, held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for death of gratuitous passengers in truck when it met with accident. In M.V.Jayadevappa v. Orietnal Fire & General Insurance Company Limited 2005 ACJ 1801,the Supreme Court held that the insurance company is not liable to pay for death or injury to a passenger being carried in the accident vehicle which is a goods vehicle. 5. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti Bharatamma 2008 ACJ 268 , it was held that Insurance-company is liable to pay compensation for death of a fare paying passenger in a goods vehicle. In the same decision, the Supreme Court also considered alternative argument of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as owner of goods being carried in that vehicle. While holding that the insurance-company cannot absolve its liability to pay compensation for death of owner of goods which were being transported in that goods vehicle when he was travelling therein as owner of the said goods, the Supreme Court made the following clarification as to who is to be reckoned as owner of such goods and where he is expected to be seated, by observing as follows: “17. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle.” Thus, any person who is claiming to be owner of goods being transported in the accident goods vehicle has to travel in cabin of that vehicle. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle.” Thus, any person who is claiming to be owner of goods being transported in the accident goods vehicle has to travel in cabin of that vehicle. If the said standard is to be applied to the case on hand, it may be noted that Netala Raju who was operator/driver of the proclainer being transported in the accident vehicle, was travelling in the cabin; whereas the two deceased persons Simhachalam and Ramana who were Supervisor and Helper of the proclainer being transported in the accident lorry, were travelling in the proclainer which was loaded in Trailor/body of the accident lorry. Therefore, by any stretch of argument, the two deceased persons viz., Simhachalam and Ramana cannot come within the phrase ‘owner of goods’ or agent of owner of goods being transported in the vehicle. Only Netala Raju who was travelling in the cabin of the lorry has to be concluded as agent of the owner of goods which were being transported in the accident lorry. Thus, though risk of Netala Raju who was operator/driver of the proclainer is covered under Ex.B-1 insurance policy, risk of the two deceased persons who were travelling in body/trailor of the lorry is not covered under Ex.B-1 policy. Therefore, the appellant/insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation by way of indemnifying the lorry owner/insured for the deaths of the two deceased persons herein. The lower tribunal did not apply correct principle of law relating to the subject. It is only driver and owner of the accident lorry who are liable to pay compensation in these two claims and not the insurance company/appellant. 6. In the result, both the miscellaneous appeals are allowed holding that the appellant/insurance-company is not liable to indemnify owner of the accident lorry in these two claims. No costs.