G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

1. Aggrieved by the award, dated 30.04.2014 made in M.C.O.P. No. 489 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge) at Tirupur, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

2. In an accident, which occurred on 15.07.2003 at 2.00 a.m. while the deceased K. Palanisamy was travelling in the car bearing Registration No. TN-33-H-7097 in Dharapuram to Palladam road near Kallakanar Bridge, the car dashed against the bridge wall resulting in fetal head injuries and died on the spot and the driver of the car also got injured. The legal representatives viz. father, mother, wife and children, have claimed compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, awarded Rs. 24,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum with costs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company contended that the Tribunal has held that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the private car bearing registration No. TN-33-H-7097 and the owner of the car had violated the policy condition and directed the appellant Insurance company to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the car and directed the owner of the car to pay the compensation to the claimants. Admittedly, the car, which was involved in the accident, was insured under Act liability (Liability only/Statutory policy) and no premium was paid for gratuitous passenger in the car and hence, the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 24,36,000/- as compensation for the deceased aged 38 years, who was running a Mill and the Tribunal was erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of Ex.P5, Saral Forms, without any supporting document such as Bank statement.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company further contended that the first respondent is having Act policy and the deceased Palanisamy is an occupant of the car, which is owned by the first respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent and since, the deceased was only an occupant and the policy was only an Act policy, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the occupant of the car, since it was not insured. Further, he contended that the Tribunal, without considering the question on that aspect, has erroneously come to the conclusion the Insurance company shall pay compensation amount and then recover the same from the owner of vehicle and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and Others, 2006 (1) TNMAC 36 SC

2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Nethaji Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri Town vs. Nagammal and Others, 2009 (1) TNMAC 1 (FB)

3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Surendra Nath Loomba and Others, 2013 ACJ 321

4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. M. Laxmi, 2009 ACJ 104

5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sudhamaran K.V. & Others, 2008 (2) TNMAC 16 (SC)

6. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Thane vs. L. Agnes and Others, 2013 (1) TNMAC 631 (DB)

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased Palanisamy was travelling as an occupant in the private car and the Car never used for hire of any reward and as per the Registration Certificate of the car, one driver plus four occupants can travel and hence, there is no prohibition for travelling as a passenger to be the occupant of the Car, apart from the driver and therefore, the deceased cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger, nor fare paying passenger and the deceased is coming under the category of third party and therefore, there is no need to pay additional premium to cover the risk or death of