The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle.

Though a common award dated 31.10.2005 was passed in MCOP.Nos.245, 246 and 260/2002, against which these appeals have been filed and a separate award dated 31.10.2005 was made in MCOP.No.358/2002, against which this Civil Revision Petition has been filed, since all the said claims arise out of the same accident, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition are being disposed of by this common judgement.

2. By the impugned award, a sum of Rs.51,000/- as total compensation to the injured claimant R.Siva in MCOP.No.245/2002, a sum of Rs.2,39,000/- as total compensation to the claimants in MCOP.No.246/2002, who are the widow, daughters and son of the deceased P.Suresh, a sum of Rs.2,13,000/- as total compensation to the claimants in MCOP.No.260/2002, who are the parents of the deceased C. Narayanasamy and Rs.5000/- as total compensation to the injured claimant K.Sankar in MCOP.No.358/2002, were awarded with interest at 6 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

3. The short facts are that on 30.11.2001 at about 4.45 p.m. the 2nd Respondent/driver drove the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake on seeing an oncoming bus in the opposite direction, as a result of which, he lost control and the vehicle went off the road and turned turtle. Two of the passengers, namely, C. Narayanasamy and P.Suresh sustained fatal injuries and the claimants in MCOP.Nos.245 and 358/2002 sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, on analyse of evidence, held that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation as stated above, fastening liability to pay compensation on the insured as well as the Insurer of the vehicle. Aggrieved against said award and fastening liability on the Insurance Company, these appeals and Civil Revision Petition have been filed by the Insurance Company.

4. Mr. S. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability to pay compensation on the Insurance Company, in view of the fact that the deceased and the injured claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the three-judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2003-ACJ-1-SC (The New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Asha Rani), wherein it was held that although the owner of the goods or his authorised representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of the goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the Insurer with respect to passengers especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. The learned counsel would submit that from the materials placed on record, it is evident that the deceased and the injured claimants were not travelling as owners of the goods and they were travelling along with the family members of the driver of the vehicle in the lorry to go to Sri Varasithi Vinayagarswamy Temple at Kanipakkam. Therefore, he would submit that the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased or to the victim of the accident, as they were travelling as gratuitous passengers.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company drew the attention of this court to the First Information Report and also the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and submitted that there was categorical admission by them that the deceased and the injured claimants were travelling only for the purpose of offering prayers to Kanipakkam Temple. He would submit that in the aforementioned situation, there is no escape from the conclusion that the deceased and the injured claimants could not