Insurance company held liable for payment of compensation.

1. The above C.M.As. arise out of M.A.C.T. O.P.Nos.1846 of 1992, 1916 of 1992 and 1855 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem. Those three claim petitions arose out of a single accident in which the petitioner in M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1846 of 1992 and the petitioner in M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1855 of 1992 were injured and one Manikandan died and his parents filed M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1916 of 1992. In M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1846 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs.1 lakh, the injured Vijayakumar was awarded Rs.53,850. In M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1855 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs.50,000, the injured Muralidharan was awarded Rs.25,000. In M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1916 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.2,20,000 was awarded. Common questions arise for decision and the C.M.As. are disposed of by the following order.

2. The injured claimants and the deceased were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. TAT.4946. The jeep dashed against rocks and trees on Yercaud Ghat Road, resulting in the accident. The tribunal held that the accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. It is not necessary to go into that question as this finding is not seriously challenged cannot also be challenged, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. This finding is confirmed.

3. The points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the C.M.As. are;

(1) The insured had violated policy conditions by carrying more than five persons in the jeep; and

(2) Policy issued was an “Act Policy” which would not cover gratuitous passengers in the jeep.

4. M.A.C.T. O.P.No.1846 of 1992 was disposed of by one officer and the other two M.A.C.T. O.Ps., namely, 1855 and 1916 of 1992, were disposed of by another officer. Though this is not very material, only for the sake of record this is noticed. On the side of the appellant/ Insurance Company in all the appeals, its official was examined as R.W.1 before the tribunal.

5. Mr.R.Vedantham, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that the jeep carried more than five persons and this was contrary to the terms of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company would be exonerated. That the jeep carried more than five passengers was not substantiated by the Insurance Company and in fact one of the claimants had emphatically denied that the jeep carried more than five passengers. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel that there was contravention of the terms of the policy was rightly rejected by the tribunal and this is confirmed.

6. The next question relates to whether the passengers in the jeep would be entitled to compensation as third parties and if so what would be the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company.

7. Mr.R.Vedantham, relied on the following decisions:

1. Pushpabai Purushottam Udeshi v. Ms.Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pushpabai Purushottam Udeshi v. Ms.Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pushpabai Purushottam Udeshi v. Ms.Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 A.C.J. 343; 2. Kunhimohammed v. Ahmedkutty 1987 A.C.J. 872; 3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Irawwa and others 1992 A.C.J. 918; 4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai 1995 A.C.J. 470; 5. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nathilal and others (1999( 1 S.C.C. 552; 6. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajayakumar 1999 A.C.J. 1499 )Ker.) 7. Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (1999) 1 A.C.C. 112 and 8. P.Sathyanarayana v. Muralidhara P.Sathyanarayana v. Muralidhara P.Sathyanarayana v. Muralidhara (1999)2 A.C.C. 155.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the provisions under the 1939 Act and the corresponding provisions in 1988 Act and submitted that there was no change with regard to the non-liability of the Insurance Company in the case of gratuitous passengers travelling in the vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that even conceding, without admitting, that the Insurance Company was liable, then th