The central legal point established in the judgment is that victims of a motor accident cannot claim compensation from the Insurance Company if they were not entitled passengers and are only liable to claim compensation from the vehicle owner.

1. Heard Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.N.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.731, 732 and 734 of 2008

2. The petitioners filed the above Civil Revision Petitions, challenging the orders dated 31.05.2002 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.26, 27 and 97 of 2001, 424, 454, 456 and 459 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate) at Pudukkottai.

3. The facts of the case is that on 02.02.2000, at about 07.30 p.m., when the petitioners were travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.TN-21-X-4802 as load woman along Illupur - Odukkur Main Road, the driver of the lorry dove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the lorry capsizes near Odukkur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate decided that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry Driver and decided that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Against this order, the petitioners filed this revision.

4. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the Tribunal has failed to note that the Goods Carrier Vehicle used to transport passenger to attend a political conference at Trichy and all the injured persons were riding as paid persons and there is violation of policy and permit conditions and he prayed that the order of the lower Court is to be set aside. It is stated that the victims were not workmen travelling in the course of employment or owners of Goods or Gratuitous passengers. Hence, the Judgment reported in 1999 ACJ Page 1 cannot be applicable to the facts of this case. The lower Court has considered that though there is violation of permit and policy conditions, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

5. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that only three persons are permitted to travel in the Lorry as load man whereas in this case, 13 persons travelled in a Lorry. The petitioners examined three witnesses. P.W.2 deposed that according to the policy only three persons are permitted to travel in the Lorry. R.W.3 has deposed that permitting 13 unauthorised passengers in a Lorry is a violation of policy conditions. Insurance Policy Ex.P2 reveals only three persons are entitled to travel in the Lorry. Relied on the Judgment reported in 2003 Law Weekly 873 and 2003 Law Weekly 710, the trial Court has decided that eventhough there is violation of policy and permit conditions, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the victims.

6. On the side of the petitioners, he relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Asha Rani and Others reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 387 (SC), which reads as follows:

“Owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in goods vehicle - Insurer not liable for praying compensation to, if the vehicle meets with accident and owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.”

7. On the side of the petitioners, he relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nagammal and Others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC 1 (FB), which reads as follows:

“Insurer not statutorily required to cover liability in respect of a passenger in goods vehicle unless such passenger is owner of goods or agent of owner of goods accompanying such goods in goods vehicle - In absence of any statutory requirement to cover liability in respect of passenger in goods vehicle, principle of ?pay and recover? as statutorily recognized in Ss.149(4) & 149(5) not applicable.”

8. On the side of the petitioners, he relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Minor Paulraj rep. By his father and Natural Guardian R1 and Others reported in 2008-2-L.W.798, which reads as follows:

“It has been consistently held that the Insurance Company is