The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of liability and compensation in motor accident claims involving the dependency of claimants on the deceased's income and the interpretation of policy conditions regarding gratuitous passengers.

1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.358 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, Erode District.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The claimants have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.358 of 2005, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, Erode District, against driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle, stating that when the first claimant's father was travelling in the mini door van bearing registration No.TN33 P0607, on the Bhavani Main Road, on 15.08.2005, at about 02.30 a.m., the driver of the mini door vehicle drove it in a high speed and in a reckless manner and due to which the van had capsized and the first claimant's father namely Kannan had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claim petition has been filed claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition stating that the deceased had travelled as a gratuitous passenger and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the risk of such passengers are not covered as per policy of insurance. The Insurance Company had denied the averments of the claim petition stating that the accident had been caused by the driver of the mini door vehicle and the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted.

4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely:

i. Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent? and

ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation?

5. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 namely FIR, rough sketch, observation mahazar, M.V.I's report, postmortem report and charge sheet. On the side of the respondents one Sengodan was examined as \R.W.1 and no document was marked.

6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the first claimant is aged about 7 years and that she is aged about 55 years. She deposed that the deceased was her son and the father of the first claimant. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was a books sales man and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.

7. P.W.1 further stated that on 15.08.2005, at about 02.30 a.m., when the deceased was travelling in the second respondent's mini door van bearing registration No.TN33 B0607, on the Anthiyoor Main Rod, the first respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the vehicle had capsized and the deceased had sustained injuries and succumbed to it.

8. P.W.2 had adduced evidence on the same line of P.W.1 regarding the accident. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger.

9. On recording the evidence of both sides and on perusing the documents marked by the claimants, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,23,200/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the Award, the above appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger and as such the claimants are not entitled to get compensation as there is a violation of policy conditions of insurance. Further, the claimant had not proved that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month through documentary evidence.

11. The learned counsel further submits that the owner of the vehicle had remitted the premium only for two persons. The deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Further, the seating capacity in the mini door vehicle is only to accommodate the driver.

12. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the first claimant is a minor girl aged about