M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharmapuri, aggrieved by the award made in M.C.O.P.Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009 dated 17.11.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri awarding a compensation of Rs.53,798/- and Rs.3,74,821/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petitions till realisation to the respective claimant, has filed these appeals questioning the liability and quantum.

2. Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company heavily contended that when sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary, were produced by the insurance company that at the time of accident, the vehicle was covered with an “Act policy” and not for any other category of persons who were on board of either the Tractor or Trailer, therefore the insurance company should have been exonerated from the liability or the risk of gratuitous passengers, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same. When the persons injured in the accident are gratuitous passengers and no insurance premium has been paid to the company, the Tribunal, considering the factor that the claimants, who are not third parties, who are alone covered under the “Act policy”, ought to have held that the claimants, who have voluntarily travelled on the load of hollow bricks without following safety rules against Rule 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, are not entitled for any compensation. Assailing the quantum of compensation, he further submitted that the compensation of Rs.3,74,821/- awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant-Rajendiran in C.M.A.No.2080 of 2014 is wholly excessive, exorbitant and unsustainable in law, because, when the accident occurred solely due to the reckless playful act of the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have reduced the compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Explaining further, he submitted that both the claimants Mr.Murugan and Mr. Rajendiran were neither loading nor unloading coolies, but were only unauthorised passengers. Moreover, when the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 28 M 6729 belonging to the second respondent was insured only for agricultural purpose, the said vehicle was carrying hollow bricks/blocks for commercial purpose. This apart, the owner of the vehicle also did not pay any premium towards the risk of persons travelling in the said vehicle, therefore, both Murugan and Rajendran, who sustained injuries, should be treated only as unauthorised passengers. However, in order to claim compensation, they have set up a case as though they were coolies. When there was no permit to carry the passengers or coolies, as the seating capacity is for driver only, as the said vehicle was not used in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, for breach of the conditions of policy, the insurance company also is not liable to indemnify the owner of the said vehicle for such violations. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that even the claim petitions also clearly admit the fact that the Tractor bearing Registration No. TN 28 M 6729 involved in the accident on 9.4.2009 at 7.00 A.M., had carried hollow bricks for the purpose of constructing a motor pump set at K.N.Savulur. Again emphatically reiterating the points, he submitted that admittedly no premium whatsoever was paid towards the coolies, therefore, when the injured Murugan and Rajendran claimed before the Tribunal that they were all working as loading and unloading coolies for the transport of hollow bricks, they are not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company for the injuries sustained by them. In fact, the said point was also canvassed before the Tribunal that the owner of the Tractor cum Trailer had not taken any policy covering the risk of coolies nor paid any additional premium, therefore, the impugned award saddling the liability to pay the compensation on the insurance company is liable to be set aside.

4. Concluding his arg