Judgment In a ghastly accident that occurred on 13.02.2004, when lorry bearing registration No.AP 31T 9698 fell from Simhachalam Hill, Visakhapatnam into the Valley, as many as 19 persons suffered from the accident. While 11 persons died in the accident, seven persons including a child of four years old sustained injuries. Various claimants, either as the injured or as dependents of the deceased filed cases under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) or under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act seeking compensation for the injuries that they sustained or for the death that their relatives. Some cases under the provisions of the M.V. Act came up before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Some other cases came up before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge [Fast Tract Court (FTC)], Visakhapatnam. Each Tribunal disposed of the cases before it, through separate orders. The insurer of the lorry preferred appeals in as many as seven of these cases. As the question of the negligence and the question of the liability of the insurer are common in all these cases, all the appeals are jointly disposes of, through this common judgment. 2. All the claims were laid under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. The advocate for the appellants in all the cases is one and the same. The counsel for all the claimants is also one and the same. 3. MOP No.605 of 2007 was filed before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam. The claimant sought compensation at Rs.1,00,000/-on the ground that he sustained injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation Rs.52,000/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum. The insurer as well as the owner of the vehicle were held liable jointly and severally. MA CMA No.60 of 2011 is filed against this case by the insurer questioning the liability. 4. The wife and children of one of the deceased in the accident filed MOP No.606 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-for the death of the deceased-husband of the first claimant in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation as claimed together with interest at 6% per annum. The wife and children of one of the deceased in the accident filed MOP No.606 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-for the death of the deceased-husband of the first claimant in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation as claimed together with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal held that there was no liability on the part of the insurer and that the insurer, however, shall first pay the awarded amount to the claimant and shall later recover the same from the owner of the offending lorry. The insurer questioned the award in MA CMA No.62 of 2011. 5. MOP No.722 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam is the claim by the minor children for the death of their mother. They claimed compensation at Rs.3,00,000/-. Compensation was awarded at Rs.2,16,000/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal made the insurer jointly and severally liable with the owner of the offending vehicle. Assailing the award, the insurer preferred MA CMA No.63 of 2011. 6. MOP No.1116 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is the claim by the injured seeking compensation at Rs.5,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by her. The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.59,000/-together with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal held that the insurer is not liable and that the insurer, however, shall first satisfy the claim of the injured and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The insurer assailed the award, through MA CMA No.67 of 2011. 7. MA CMA No.68 of 2011 questions the award in MOP No.1230 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The claim is made by an injured worker. Compensation was sought for Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.1,26,000/-together with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal once again held that the insurer was not answerable to the claim and that the insurer, however, shall first pay the awarded amount to the injured and shall then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 8. Compensation was sought for Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.1,26,000/-together with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal once again held that the insurer was not answerable to the claim and that the insurer, however, shall first pay the awarded amount to the injured and shall then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 8. One of the injured in the accident filed MOP No.604 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam seeking compensation at Rs.1,00,000/-. The compensation as claimed by the injured was awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 7.5% per annum. The insurer questions the same, through MA CMA No.113 of 2011. 9. Lastly, MOP No.657 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam is a case where the husband and the children of the deceased lady claimed compensation at Rs.3,00,000/-for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded compensation Rs.2,26,000/-together with interest at 7.5%. The insurer preferred appeal in MA CMA No.203 of 2011 impugning the award. 10. Thus, in MOP Nos.605 of 2007, 722 of 2007, 604 of 2007 and 657 of 2007, the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam passed awards making the insurer and the owner of the lorry jointly and severally liable. She awarded interest at 7.5% per annum. MOP Nos.606 of 2007, 1116 of 2007 and 1230 of 2007 were on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhpatnam. In these cases, the Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum only. Further, the Tribunal held that the insurer was not liable to satisfy the claimants and that the insurer, however, shall first satisfy the claimants by paying awarded amount to them and then recover the same from the owner of the offending lorry. In both situations, appeals have been preferred by the insurer. The insurer claims primarily that there are violations of the policy terms and that the insurer, therefore, is not liable to satisfy the demand of the claimants. The insurer further contended that this is not a fit case for invoking “the pay and recover” policy. Hence, these appeals. 11. The basic facts more or less are not in dispute. The insurer claims primarily that there are violations of the policy terms and that the insurer, therefore, is not liable to satisfy the demand of the claimants. The insurer further contended that this is not a fit case for invoking “the pay and recover” policy. Hence, these appeals. 11. The basic facts more or less are not in dispute. The deceased as well as the injured barring for the child are labourers under a private contractor viz., Ramabhadra Sudhir. They were engaged as labourers on Simhachalam Hilltop Road. The claimants assert that the injured and the deceased were engaged for loading and unloading the road laying material. On 13.02.2004, while the workers were returning from duty by boarding offending lorry, the lorry fell in a nearby valley. It turned turtle. Various workmen travelling in the lorry either sustained injuries or suffered from fatal injuries. The insured and the dependents of the deceased, consequently, claimed compensation for the death of the deceased. 12. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. However, the insurer (the second respondent before the Tribunal and the appellant herein) resisted the claims contending that as many as 19 labourers working on the construction to the Hilltop Road from Hanumanthawaka Junction to Simhachalam unauthorizedly boarded the water tanker of the first respondent to go to View Point and that the accident occurred while the water tanker was proceeding towards View Point. It further alleged that the labourers never worked under the owner of the water tanker and that they boarded the lorry in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurer thus contended that the insurer was not liable, since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 13. The result of MOP No.605 of 2007 and batch before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam and the result of MOP No.606 of 2007 and batch by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam have already been noticed. In one of the batches, the insurer was found to be jointly and severally liable with the owner of the lorry. In one of the batches, the insurer was found to be jointly and severally liable with the owner of the lorry. In the other batch of cases, it was held that the insurer was not liable since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and that the insurer, however, shall first pay the awarded compensation and later recover the same from the owner of the lorry. Considering that the orders in both the set of cases before the Tribunals were against the insurer, the insurer preferred the present batch of appeals. 14. From the contentions of Sri S.N.K. Mahanthi, learned counsel for the claimants, it would appear that the distance between Hanumanthawaka Junction to the foot of Simhachalam Temple, through L.V. Prasad Hospital Road is about 19 kilometers. It would appear that there is a proposal for laying a ropeway from Hanumanthawaka Hilltop to Simhachalam Hilltop. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that the distance from the foot of the hill to the zenith of Hanumanthawaka is about 6 kilometers. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted these facts to point out that there is no water source at the hilltop of Hanumanthawaka Junction and contended that water is carried through lorries to the hilltop. 15. On the fateful day, which was 13.02.2004, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted, the unloading labourers loaded the lorry with water, 25 bags of cement and wooden logs. The load was to be downloaded at one-kilometer point from the hilltop. The labourers were travelling in the lorry to operate the process of down loading at the one-kilometer point at the hilltop. The learned counsel for the claimants pointed out that the claimants were not travelling as passengers but were travelling as labourers in the lorry. He contended that the First Information Report (FIR) and charge sheet disclosed that the claimants were travelling as labourers in the lorry. 16. Regarding the question whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry or not, there is no dispute. The two Tribunals, in the batch of cases, concluded that the driver of the offending lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 16. Regarding the question whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry or not, there is no dispute. The two Tribunals, in the batch of cases, concluded that the driver of the offending lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As the negligence aspect has not been urged before me by Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the insurer, perhaps, it can be held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 17. Added to it, the accident would appear to be a case of res ipsa loquitur. The lorry was loaded with water, cement and wooden logs. Added to it, as many as 19 persons sat on various parts of the lorry. When the lorry fell into the valley without any other cause, the necessary inference is that the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Viewed in either angle, it is evident that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. 18. The quantum of compensation is not very seriously contested. Various amounts were awarded as compensation in these cases by two Tribunals, which were already referred to. If it is established that the insurer is liable to answer the claims, the awards can safely be confirmed. The fundamental question is whether the insurer is liable to answer the claims. 19. The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the labourers boarded the lorry in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, so much so, the insurer is absolved of the liability. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants urged first, that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and secondly that even if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer shall first honour the awards and then recover the same from the owner of the lorry. This theory of “pay and recover” has been stiffly resisted by the learned counsel for the insurer. Both sides placed reliance upon decisions in respect of their respective contentions. This theory of “pay and recover” has been stiffly resisted by the learned counsel for the insurer. Both sides placed reliance upon decisions in respect of their respective contentions. However, before going into these decisions relied upon by both sides, I may examine at the outset whether there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and then determine whether the insurer would be liable if the terms and conditions of the policy are violated. 20. The injured and the deceased were labourers working under a private contractor by name Ramabhadra Sudhir. The private contractor was not a party before the Tribunal and is not a party in these appeals. The second respondent before the Tribunal who laid the present appeals is the insurer of the lorry in which the injured and the deceased were travelling at the time of the accident. The said lorry bearing registration No. P 31T 9698 is owned by the first respondent. The first respondent is not represented before this Court. The second respondent herein who was the first respondent before the Tribunal remained ex parte at the time of the trial itself. The keen contest, therefore, is between the insurer and the injured labourers-dependents of the deceased labourers. 21. The learned counsel for the insurer contended that albeit the lorry was insured with the insurer, the labourers were unauthorized passengers in the lorry and that carrying unauthorized passengers in the lorry is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, Sri S.N.K. Mahanthi representing the injured and the dependents of the deceased labourers contended that the labourers were accompanying the goods at the time of the accident and that the labourers were not unauthorized passengers in the lorry. 22. It is the case of the claimants that upon the instructions from the owner of the lorry, the labourers boarded the lorry after loading the material into the lorry for the purpose of unloading. Ex.A.1 attested copy of the FIR recites that the labourers boarded the lorry upon the advice of the contractor. There was a removable water tank in the lorry. About 25 bags of cement and wooden planks were loaded into the lorry. Some of the labourers sat on the goods, while some other labourers sat on the water tanker. In all 19 persons travelled in the lorry. There was a removable water tank in the lorry. About 25 bags of cement and wooden planks were loaded into the lorry. Some of the labourers sat on the goods, while some other labourers sat on the water tanker. In all 19 persons travelled in the lorry. Both the FIR as well as the charge sheet are very clear in pointing out that it is not the owner of the lorry who engaged the labourers. It is the contractor by name Ramabhadra Sudhir. The labourers were working under him. The labourers admittedly boarded the lorry at the direction of the contractor and not on invitation by the owner of the lorry. Assuming that the labourer boarded the lorry on being invited by the owner of the lorry, such an invitation could be against the terms and conditions of the policy, as the policy does not permit carrying passengers in the lorry. 23. To obviate this circumstance, the learned counsel for the labourers contended that the labourers were travelled in the lorry as workmen accompanying the goods. His case is that the loaded water, cement bags and wooden logs/planks were to be unloaded at a distance of 1 k.m. from hilltop and that the labourers were travelling in the lorry to accomplish the task of unloading the lorry. He contended that the labourers were thus travelling in the lorry as passengers accompanying the goods. 24. RW.1 is the Senior Assistant of the insurer. RW.1 admitted that the offending lorry was insured for carrying 8 labourers and that additional premium was collected in that regard. Referring to the 7 appeals that are presently disposed of through this common order, the learned counsel for the labourers contended that as 7 appeals alone are pending, the insurer has no alternative but to honour the claims, since additional premium was collected for carrying labourers in the lorry. 25. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants-insurer claims that such a premium covers authorized labourers travelling in the lorry and that the labourers involved in the present cases were not covered by the policy, as they were unauthorized passengers. The case of both sides is that the labourers were travelling in the lorry towards 1 k.m. point from the hilltop and that the accident occurred in the meanwhile. The case of both sides is that the labourers were travelling in the lorry towards 1 k.m. point from the hilltop and that the accident occurred in the meanwhile. The controversy is whether the labourers were travelling as workmen accompanying the goods or as unauthorized passengers. 26. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the FIR and the charge sheet shows that the labourers boarded the lorry upon the instructions of contractor-Ramabhadra Sudhir. There was no evidence that the driver or the owner of the lorry protested for the labourers boarding the lorry. There is no contrary evidence in this regard. Although the insurer examined one of its clerks as RW.1, there is no evidence from the insurer that the labourers were highhandedly travelling in the lorry without the consent of the owner of the lorry. In the absence of contrary evidence, I assume that the labourers were travelling in the lorry accompanying the goods. Whether such labourers are entitled to claim compensation for the injury sustained by them and whether the dependents of such deceased labourers could question compensation under the M.V. Act is the question in this regard. I may examine the case law now to determine the legal questions. 27. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma ( 2008 ACJ 268 ), a question arose regarding the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of passengers travelling in a goods carriage. The Supreme Court observed that the insurer could not be fastened with liability to pay compensation along with the owner of the vehicle to all the injured and legal representatives of the deceased and observed that the liability of the insurer at best was in respect of one non-fare passenger only who was the owner of the goods. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi ( 2008 ACJ 2144 ), the driver of a truck, which caused the accident, did not possess any valid and effective driving licence. The deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the truck which was goods carrying vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the owner of the truck alone was liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased and that the insurer was not liable. In National Insurance Co. The deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the truck which was goods carrying vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the owner of the truck alone was liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased and that the insurer was not liable. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani ( 2009 ACJ 925 ), where the victims of the accident were travelling in the truck as gratuitous passengers the Supreme Court considered that the insurer was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Bharath Kumar ( 2009 ACJ 2349 ), a truck loaded with mud was carrying several passengers. When the truck met with an accident, six of the passengers died and six other passengers sustained injuries. Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules proscribed carrying of passengers in goods vehicle. This Court held that there was no liability on the part of the insurer. Added to it, the Court considered that it was not a fit case for ordering the Insurer to pay and recover. In Thokchom Ongoi Sangeeta v. Oriental Insruance Co. Ltd. (2008 (1) ALD 81 (SC), it was held that the insurer was not liable to pay compensation when passengers travelling in goods carriage suffered death or bodily injuries. It was further observed that there was no duty under the provisions of M.V. Act to compulsorily insure the vehicle for covering the risk of passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. 28. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the insurer also placed reliance upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Madavarapu Anil (2012 (4) ALD 482). In that case, the claimant was a midway passenger. He boarded a lorry along with electric motors purchased by him. He travelled in a goods lorry along with other persons who were already travelling in the lorry. A learned single Judge of this Court considered that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and that the insurer was not liable, as the policy did not cover the risk of passengers. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurnool v. Balaswamy (2012 (4) ALD 539), when the labourers engaged by a contractor for laying a road were travelling in a tractor to go to the site, the accident occurred. It was held that the labourers were not workmen within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurnool v. Balaswamy (2012 (4) ALD 539), when the labourers engaged by a contractor for laying a road were travelling in a tractor to go to the site, the accident occurred. It was held that the labourers were not workmen within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act. The policy did not cover the risk of passengers of the goods vehicle and merely covered the risk of driver alone. The Court held that the insurer was not liable to answer the claim. On the strength of these decisions, it is contended by the insurer that the deceased and injured in these cases were gratuitous passengers and are not covered by the policy. The learned counsel for the claimants tried to show that the labourers who died and who were injured in the accident are entitled to compensation for the death/injuries. 29. Sri S.N.K. Mahanthi, learned counsel for the claimants, however, submitted that the insurer is liable to answer the claim and that the injured were travelling in the lorry as labourers accompanying goods. In Chakali Narasappa v. K. Ramana ( 2010 ACJ 1601 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants, one of the labourers travelling in a truck died when the truck met with an accident. Although the insurer contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the policy did not cover the risk of such gratuitous passenger, the insurer did not let in any evidence to substantiate its contention. As against the claim of the insurer, the policy showed that premium was collected covering the risk of six labourers travelling in the truck for the purpose of loading and unloading goods. This Court considered on the facts and circumstances of the case that the deceased was travelling in the truck for loading groundnut and that the insurer was liable to the claim. 30. It may be noticed that the labourers travelling in the offending lorry were not engaged by the owner of the lorry. They were engaged by a contractor who hired the lorry. Added to it, a private contractor, who engaged the labourers by name Ramabhadra Sudhir was not a party before the Tribunal nor is a party in this appeal. At the same time, it may be recalled that the policy collected premium for carrying eight labourers. They were engaged by a contractor who hired the lorry. Added to it, a private contractor, who engaged the labourers by name Ramabhadra Sudhir was not a party before the Tribunal nor is a party in this appeal. At the same time, it may be recalled that the policy collected premium for carrying eight labourers. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the labourers travelling in the lorry were thus covered by the policy and that consequently the insurer is jointly and severally liable with the owner of the lorry to satisfy the claim of the labourers or their dependents. As I have already concluded (vide para 26) of this common judgment that the labourers were travelling in the lorry accompanying goods, where the lorry permitted eight labourers to travel along with goods and premium was paid for eight labourers, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the insurer would be jointly and severally liable with the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation for the death of the deceased and for the injuries sustained. 31. The learned counsel for the claimants cited various cases like New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi (L.C.ACR 2011 (8) S.C. 111), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nanjappan ( AIR 2004 SC 1630 (1), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam (2011 ACJ 917), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaroopa (2006 (2) T.A.C. 483 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 )and other cases where the Supreme Court and other Courts considered that in the event the insurer is not liable, the insurer is liable to honour the award by paying compensation and shall later recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. However, where the labourers were travelling in the lorry accompanying the goods, the liability of the insurer is absolute jointly and severally with the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants are redundant. Be it noted, however, that even if the labourers were not travelling in the lorry as labourers accompanying the goods, the insurer would have been liable to first honour the award and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 32. Consequently, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants are redundant. Be it noted, however, that even if the labourers were not travelling in the lorry as labourers accompanying the goods, the insurer would have been liable to first honour the award and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 32. The learned Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. However, the Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam held that the insurer was not liable and that the insurer consequently shall pay and recover. In MOP Nos.606 of 2007, 1116 of 2007 and 1230 of 2007 from which MA CMA Nos.62 of 2011, 67 of 2011 and 68 of 2011 arose, it was held that the insurer shall pay the awarded amount and shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Where the labourers were travelling in the lorry not as fare paid passengers but as labourers accompanying the goods as the facts show, the insurer is jointly and severally liable with the owner of the vehicle, since there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, the orders in MOP Nos.606 of 2007, 1116 of 2007 and 1230 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam from which MA CMA Nos.62 of 2011, 67 of 2011 and 68 of 2011 arose in fact deserve to be modified holding that the insurer is jointly and severally liable with the owner of the offending lorry to pay compensation to the claimants. However, no cross appeal was preferred by the claimants questioning the award. I, therefore, deem it appropriate not to interfere with the award passed by the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam regarding the liability of the insurer. Rest of the appeals arose from the awards passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam where the learned Judge awarded compensation and directed payment of the same by the insurer jointly and severally with the owner of the offending vehicle. Rest of the appeals arose from the awards passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam where the learned Judge awarded compensation and directed payment of the same by the insurer jointly and severally with the owner of the offending vehicle. For the reasons already set out, I have no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam. The appeals of the insurer to this extent deserve to be dismissed. 33. So far as the interest is concerned, the Chairman, MACT-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam granted interest at 7.5% per annum, whereas the Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam granted interest at 6% per annum. In New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Gopali (Civil Appeal No.5179 of 2012, dated 05.07.2012), the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to grant interest at 12% per annum, where the accident occurred prior to 2001. I, therefore, consider that it would be just and proper to uphold the rate of interest, as awarded at 6% or 7.5%, as the case may be, by the Tribunals, in these batch of cases. It would have been appropriate to rise the rate of interest, had there been the cross appeals from the claimants. In the absence of cross appeals, I am not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunals in this batch of cases. 34. The quantum of compensation payable in the disputed awards, is not in question. What is the question by the insurer is its liability to answer the claim either jointly or severally with the owner of the lorry or on the basis of first pay and then recover from the owner of the lorry. I, therefore, do not propose to go into the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded in each case, considering that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunals were correct. 35. For the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the labourers were travelling in the lorry as labourers accompanying the goods and that the insurer is jointly and severally liable with the owner of the lorry when the labourers died or sustained injuries in the accident. It is also found that the interest awarded by the Tribunals in the assailed awards is just and reasonable. 36. Consequently, there are no merits in the appeals. The appeals, therefore, are dismissed. It is also found that the interest awarded by the Tribunals in the assailed awards is just and reasonable. 36. Consequently, there are no merits in the appeals. The appeals, therefore, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.