Judgment 1. Heard Sri R. Venkat Rao, the learned counsel representing the appellant/respondent and Sri Kakarla Venkata Rao, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., had taken this Court through the grounds specified in the grounds of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents, would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs., Union of India and another 2009 ACJ 2444 , the said grounds cannot be sustained and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal:- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Chairman, MACT, East Godavari, II Additional District Judge in O.P.No.399 of 2000 is to be confirmed or to be disturbed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? POINT NO:1- 5. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as shown in O.P.No.399 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, MACT, East Godavari, II Additional District Judge. 6. The petitioner filed the above said O.P., before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavary, (hereinafter in short referred to as "The Tribunal), claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the death of her son Goru Satya Veera Vara Prasad, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" for the purpose of convenience), who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.11.1995. The allegations made in the O.P. are as hereunder:- "The deceased Goru Satya Veeera Vara Prasad was the only son to the petitioner. By the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 19 years old and he was hale and healthy. He was doing cloth business since two years prior to the accident. He used to go to Srikakulam, Bobbili, Vizianagaram for selling sarees, blouses etc., at various places and earn Rs.3000/- per month. He was giving his entire earnings to the petitioner for the maintenance of the family. He was doing cloth business since two years prior to the accident. He used to go to Srikakulam, Bobbili, Vizianagaram for selling sarees, blouses etc., at various places and earn Rs.3000/- per month. He was giving his entire earnings to the petitioner for the maintenance of the family. Except the earnings of the deceased, the family has no other income and the entire family was depends on the income of the deceased. The deceased after selling sarees etc., at various places was returning to Rajahmundry in the lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 4689 along with load of cloth. On 07.11.1995 at about 6 A.M. the lorry reached Murari village, when the lorry reached Papannacheruvu in Murari Village, on G.N.T. Road, the 1st respondent being the driver of the said lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a person by name Alla Venkataraju, who was attending to his calls of nature and the lorry turned turtle to the left side. The deceased, who was traveling in the lorry fell down and crushed under the lorry and died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Had he driven the lorry cautiously and carefully, the accident would not have been caused. Due to the death of her only son, the petitioner lost the support and affection of her son. The loss sustained by the petitioner cannot be compensated in terms of money. The first respondent being the driver and second responding being the owner and the third respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner." 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not chosen to contest the matter. 8. The third respondent filed counter and additional counter with the following averments, which reads as hereunder:- "The burden is upon the petitioner to prove that the accident vehicle is validly insured with the third respondent. It is false to state that the deceased, who was aged about 19 years was doing cloth business and that he was earning Rs.3,000/-per month. It is false to state that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. It is false to state that the deceased, who was aged about 19 years was doing cloth business and that he was earning Rs.3,000/-per month. It is false to state that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The petitioner has to further prove that the person, who was driving the vehicle had a valid driving licence and that the owner of the vehicle had valid permit issued by the Road Transport authorities. The deceased was traveling in the accident vehicle as an unauthorized passenger at the time of accident. As per the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the third respondent in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident, the liability of the third respondent is exonerated as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the terms and conditions of the policy, since carrying passengers is strictly prohibited in the goods vehicle. The accident vehicle is a goods vehicle and the deceased, who was traveling in the vehicle as an unauthorized passenger, therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads is excessive. The petitioner is also not entitled to claim interest. For the foregoing reasons, the 3rd respondent prays the Court to dismiss the petition." 9. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues had been settled:- (1) Whether the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver R-1? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? 10. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 11. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the O.P. can be allowed in part with proportionate costs granting total compensation of Rs.90,000/-to the petitioner with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 11. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the O.P. can be allowed in part with proportionate costs granting total compensation of Rs.90,000/-to the petitioner with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The third respondent was directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the award to the credit of the O.P. and on such deposit, the same shall be deposited in any nationalized Bank for a period of 30 months from the date of the award. The rest of the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., had preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 12. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs., Asha Rani 2003 (1) ALD 18 SC= (2001) 6 SCC 724 . However, the learned counsel representing the respondents placed strong reliance on the decision reported in M/s. National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., Baljit Kaur and others 2003 (1) Supreme 3, wherein at para 21, the Apex Court observed as follows:- "The upshot of the aforementioned discussion is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh's case ( (2000) 1 SCC 237 ). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani's case (supra).We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani's case (supra).We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding." 13. In the light of the decision referred to supra, the stand taken by the appellant may not be the correct stand in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be found fault with, in any away. Even apart from that, this Court had given careful consideration to the evidence available on record and is satisfied that on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, Exs.A.1 to A.5 and R.W.1 and Ex.B.1, the learned Tribunal came to the correct conclusion in awarding the compensation. Except this point, no other points had been argued before this Court. In the light of the same, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.