(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 06.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2nd Additional District and Sessions Court), Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant against the award and decree dated 06.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2nd Additional District and Sessions Court), Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

2. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in MCOP No.346 of 2015 has come out with this present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging liability fastened on the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance Company has marked the Ex.R.1-Insurance Policy which is an Act Policy and there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company towards claim of the pillion riders. The Act Policy does not cover the risk of death or bodily injuries to the gratuitous passengers. The liability of the Insurance Company can be determined only on the basis of premium collected and in the absence of additional premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal erred in holding that the 1st respondent is third party and failed to note that occupant of the vehicle cannot be treated as third party. Further, the Tribunal failed to take note of the Judgment reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 637 (SC) and 2012 (2) TN MAC 650 (SC). Further, in support of his contention, he relied upon the following Judgments:

(i). New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. S.Krishnasamy and others reported in 2015 (1) TN MAC 19 (DB).

“18. In view of the rulings cited above, we are of the considered view that since, the Policy is only an Act Policy issued by the Appellant-Insurance Company to the Insurer and the deceased Palanisamy was only an occupant of the Private Car, cannot be considered as ‘Third party’ of the vehicle and the Policy is covered risks to the third party alone. Hence, the deceased was only the occupant of the Private Car and the said Policy will not cover the risk of the deceased. The Doctrine of Pay and Recovery cannot be applied to the facts of the case, since the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the Compensation. Hence, pay amount to the Claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be ordered and in view of the above, the rulings cited on the side of the Respondents 1 to 5/Claimants are not applicable to the facts of the present case.”

(ii). National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M.Padmini and others, reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 566

“5. It is not an easy route that the Tribunal has adopted to conclude that the Appellant was not liable. It helped itself to be guided by several Authorities commencing from New India Assurance Vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2004 (2) TN MAC (SC) 387 : 2003 (2) SCC 223, to United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tilak Singh and others, 2006 (1) TN MAC 36 (SC) : 2006 (2) CTC 661, to arrive at its conclusion. I find the said finding is in order and does not call for any interference.

6. In this context, I find that the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Claimants suspecting the genuineness of Ext.R1 less convincing. It does not stand to reason as to why should an Insurance Company go personal in this particular case to fabricate a document when it faces claims running to several lakhs every day. And Ext.R6 – Proposal Form does not support him either. As to the second leg of his argument in equating Loading TP with additional premium, it needs to be stated that the expression TP is but an abbreviation for Third Party and the premium on a Third Party Insurance is additionally loaded. In this regard General Regulations in GR3 of IMT is relevant.

“G.R.3 Policy Forms:

Policies insuring Motor Vehicles are to be issued only as per the Standard Form(