The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to compensate passengers traveling in goods auto-rickshaws if there is a breach of policy conditions or violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.

A. Hariprasad, J.

These three appeals are heard together and disposed by this common judgment as the questions of law arising are common.

2. M.A.C.A. No.1373 of 2015 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., the 3rd respondent in O.P. (MV) No.93 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur.

3. In M.A.C.A. No.662 of 2016, the award passed in O.P.(MV) No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba is assailed by owner of the vehicle involved in the road accident, who was the 1st respondent before the Tribunal.

4. M.A.C.A. No.1678 of 2016 is against the award passed in O.P. (MV) No.959 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta. The 3rd respondent in the claim petition (National Insurance Company Ltd.) is the appellant herein.

5. Case pleaded in O.P.(MV) No.56 of 2015 is that on 16.11.2005, while the claimant was accompanying the goods carried in a goods auto-rickshaw bearing No.KL-13 M-4943, the vehicle overturned and the claimant sustained extensive head injury, contusion on temporal region affecting the left ear, contusion on the neck, shoulder and left thigh. According to her, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw by the appellant, who is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. She claimed compensation from the respondents in the claim petition.

6. The appellant filed a written statement denying rashness and negligence alleged against him. But he admitted the fact that he was the owner-cum-driver of the auto-rickshaw involved in the accident. Appellant contended that the vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company and it had issued a composite insurance policy. Ext.B1 is the policy produced. The policy produced was incomplete. According to the appellant, Ext.B1 did not prohibit carrying the owner of the goods. Ext.B1 policy did not show that it permitted only the driver to travel, as it is silent as to the number of people permitted to travel. So, the company cannot get extricated itself from the liability to pay compensation. It is also contended by the appellant that in respect of the same vehicle, another insurance company later issued a policy showing the seating capacity 1 + 1. The injured travelled in the auto-rickshaw not as a gratuitous passenger. She hired the vehicle to carry coconuts belonged to her and she was accompanying the goods. Therefore, the company is liable to pay compensation.

7. The respondent insurance company admitted that the auto-rickshaw involved in the accident was insured with them on the date of accident. Insurance company disputed the quantum of claim raised by the claimant. The investigation conducted by their officers revealed that the claimant was travelling in the goods auto-rickshaw as a passenger. Since the above vehicle is a goods vehicle, the claimant's journey in the vehicle was in violation of the terms of policy as well as the stipulations in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, "the MV Act"). The claimant was only a gratuitous passenger. The investigation conducted by the insurance company revealed that the seating capacity of the auto-rickshaw is one and no person other than the driver was allowed to travel in the auto-rickshaw. There was a permit violation also.

8. Initially the Tribunal awarded compensation and directed the insurance company to recover the same from the owner-cum-driver. Aggrieved by the said direction, an appeal was preferred before this Court. On a consideration of the matters, this Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to reconsider the question whether there was any breach of the terms of policy. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the question and passed the award. In the second round also Tribunal permitted the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner-cum-driver of the auto-rickshaw. Hence he is in appeal.

9. M.A.C.A. No. 1678 of 2016 is filed by the 3rd respondent ins