The liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimants injured in a motor vehicle accident, and the liberty granted to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount paid from the owner of the vehicle.

1. These revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Insurance Company against the common award passed by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Tiruvannamalai in MACTOP Nos.300, 302, 304, 305, 307, 310, 312, 315, 316, 317, 318, 322, 323 of 2001 dated 31.12.2002.

2. The 1st respondent in all these appeals are the claimants and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The facts are that on 10.06.2001 at about 10.a.m., when the claimants were proceeding on Thiruvannamalai Polur main road in the lorry owned by the 2nd respondent bearing Registration no.TN 21B 5074, the lorry capsized and on account of the accident, the claimants who are travelling in the lorry were injured. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. A criminal case was also registered in Crime No.202 of 2001 against the driver of the lorry before the Kalasapakkam Police Station. The claimants contention is that they are all coolies and they were travelling in the vehicle to reach the workspot and because of the injury sustained on account of the accident, they had lost their livelihood and therefore, they filed individual claim petitions claiming various sums as compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that totally 32 persons travelled in the vehicle out of which 22 persons filed claim petitions and the Insurance Company has preferred these 13 revision petitions as against the awards passed by the Tribunal in cases where the compensation amount awarded exceeded the sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing a counter affidavit interalia contending that the persons who travelled in the lorry were not coolies but they were gratuitous passengers as they were travelling to attend a marriage and the date on which the accident occurred namely 10.06.2001, which was a marriage day. Further, the Insurance company also contended that the amount claimed under various heads are excessive. The owner of the lorry though served remained exparte before the Tribunal.

4. The claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked 44 documents and on the side of the respondents one witness was examined as R.W.1 who is the Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company.

5. Based on the above pleadings and contentions raised, the tribunal framed three points for consideration namely,

"1) Whether the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent not of the driving of the driver of the first respondents lorry?

2) Whether the second respondent is obsolved from liability to pay compensation, as the injuried-victims have travelled in the said lorry as unauthorised passengers, as against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

3) Whether the petitioner in each application is entitled to compensation, and if so what is the quantum?"

6. In respect of the Point no.(1) the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. As against this conclusion there is no serious contest by the petitioner Insurance Company in these revisions and therefore the finding of the Tribunal on this point is confirmed.

7. In respect of the Point No.(2) the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In support of its finding, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Satpal Singh, reported in 200 A.C.J (1), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:

""The result is that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act viz-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of