The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company in cases of permit violation and driving license endorsement, based on the interpretation of 'light motor vehicle' and the principle of pay and recovery.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in C.M.A.No.119 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.

C.M.A.No.120 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.

C.M.A.No.121 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.

C.M.A.No.122 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. The batch of four appeals arising out of a common judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.

2. Four claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal in respect of an accident occurred on 29.03.2014, while the claim petitioners were travelling in an Auto bearing Reg.No.TN-51-C-1431 from Nagapattinam to Velankanni for purchase of fishes, dashed behind the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-28-K-2040 near Veerankudikadu bus stop.

3. The common facts involved in these cases is that on the date of the accident, (1)Tmt. Dhanapakkiyam the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015(C.M.A.No.119 of 2017); (2)Tmt.Ramadevi the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2015(C.M.A.No.120 of 2017); (3)Tmt.Palaniyammal the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2015 (C.M.A.No.121 of 2015); and (4)Tmt.Janaki the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 (C.M.A.No.122 of 2017) all are fish vendors and have gone together in the Auto from their Village to Nagapattinam for purchasing fish. On the way, near Veerankudikadu bus stop, the Auto, in which they were travelling, dashed behind the lorry in which all the four claimants sustained severe injury and they were taken to Nagapattinam Government Hospital and admitted as inpatient and given treatment.

4. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. Hence, holding the owner of the auto and the Insurance Company liable for the injury sustained and loss of income, the claimants have made the following claim:-

1. Dhanapakkiyam in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015 had claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

2. Ramadevi in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2015 had claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

3. Palaniyammal in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2015 had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Janaki in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The respondent/Insurance Company filed a common counter wherein they contested the claim on the ground that the Auto driver had no valid driving licence and seven persons were travelling in the load Auto against the permit and policy condition. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. In the additional counter, it has been specifically contended that since the owner of the vehicle has remained ex parte and not furnished the details about the vehicle, they have wrongly mentioned the Auto as a load Auto and now, they come to know that the Auto in which the claimants were travelling was a passenger vehicle. The permitted capacity for a passenger auto is only 3 +1. No extra premium was paid by the vehicle owner to cover the wider risk. At the time of accident, seven passengers along with the driver totally eight persons were travel