The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for passengers traveling in a vehicle with zero seating capacity, as per the interpretation of the insurance provision and established legal principles.

(Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 21.04.2007 made in MCOP.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.4), Bhavani, Erode District.)

1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant by the Tribunal in respect of a mini door vehicle, in MCOP.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.4), Bhavani, Erode District.

2. According to the claimant, the claimant and two others were travelling in a mini door goods carrier vehicle. According to the F.I.R. filed, they were returning in the vehicle after the rice bags were delivered near Periyamariamman Koil. The Insurance Company would only contend that the vehicle which is a mini door goods carrier does not have any seating capacity for any passenger and only the driver can travel along with the vehicle and nobody else is permitted to travel as there is zero capacity in the vehicle. They are not eligible to travel in the vehicle even as the owner of the goods. But in this case as per the F.I.R. since they are returning back after the delivery of the goods, the passengers were travelling as un-authorised persons. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation since the policy does not cover for anybody else other than the driver and hence the award granted by the court below is not correct. They also questioned the quantum. Hence, the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that in the F.I.R., it is stated that they were travelling in the vehicle after delivering the goods. In the evidence which was let in, had contended that they were returning with some other returned goods also. Therefore, they were travelling as a passenger as the owner of the goods in the goods carrier. Therefore, under law, they would be covered under the policy and hence, the liability cannot be questioned by the Insurance Company and the award granted by the court below is fair and reasonable and they would contend that the R.C. Book has not been produced or permit is not produced to establish the fact that there is prohibition in so far as the passengers are concerned. Hence, the award is correct.

4. Heard both parties. The short point for consideration in the appeal is whether the Insurance Company would be held liable in respect of a passenger or as a person who is un-authorisedly travelling in the vehicle when there is no seating capacity in the vehicle.

5. The main point in dispute raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Insurance Policy does not cover persons who were travelling in the vehicle which are not authorised. In this case, as per the F.I.R. the claimant and two others were travelling in the mini door goods carrier vehicle after delivering the rice bags. Whereas, in the evidence of P.W.1 it could be seen that the persons claimed that they travelled along with the returned rice bags. Therefore, they were travelling as owners of the returned goods. Therefore, the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, once they are travelling in the vehicle as owner of a good, they would be covered by the policy.

6. But when we analyse the original policy which is marked as Ex.B1, there is one clause in the policy, namely, seating capacity which clearly indicates zero capacity which means apart from the driver nobody else could travel in the vehicle. This main point was argued and brought to the notice by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that even though there is a specific clause in the policy which is a commercial vehicle that no seating capacity was allowed, this could be only checked and proved by the production of the R.C.book and the permit which conveniently was not produced