The main legal point established is that the liability of the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act is contingent upon the claimant falling within the covered categories of the insurance policy, as specified in the relevant provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying against the award and decree dated 12.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.)

Common Judgment:

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. These two appeals are directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruthani dated 12/12/2014 passed in MCOP.No.51 of 2010.

2. On 25/11/2007 at about 11.30 am, at Rengiunta – Cuddappa road railway over bridge ‘Y’ junction, a Eicher mini lorry dashed against the goods delivery auto. The driver of the auto died. The claimant travelling along with the driver sustained injuries.

3. Claim petition filed by the injured for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alleging that he was travelling in the goods auto as salesman. He was earning Rs.4,000/- per month in Venkateswara Milk Dairy at Kalahasthi. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver and the mini lorry driver. Hence, the respondents before the Tribunal are jointly and severely liable to compensate him the loss.

4. In the claim petition, the owner of the auto and its insurer were arrayed as first and second respondents and the owner of the mini lorry and its insurer were arrayed as third and fourth respondents respectively. The insurer of the auto filed counter. It denied liability, stating that the auto insured under them was a goods carrier. As per permit, apart from the Driver no one else is permitted to travel in the goods auto. The claim petitioner who occupied the auto as 'salesman' is an unauthorised occupant. Neither the permit of the vehicle nor the insurance terms covers unauthorised passenger. In case of violation of policy condition, the Insurer is not liable to pay. The Police on investigation, filed FIR against the auto driver for his rash and negligent driving and without driving license. Later, final report was filed as abated due to the death of the auto driver. The compensation claimed is also excessive and no evidence for his income and disability.

5. The insurer of the mini lorry filed counter denying liability for the reason that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the auto driver. The police has closed the FIR as abated since the Tort-feasor died. When the vehicle insured under them is at no fault, there can be no liability fastened on them.

6. The tribunal after considering the evidence placed before it, passed award against the second respondent/the insurer of the auto to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

7. Against the said award fixing liability on them, the second respondent in the claim petition is before this court as appellant in CMA.No.2682 of 2016. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this Court as appellant in CMA.No.2754 of 2016.

8. Citing judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, the learned counsel for the Insurer of the Auto submitted that in case of fundamental policy violation, the insurer of the Auto is not liable to compensate. Even the principle of “pay and recovery” will not apply in case of violation of permit condition and policy terms. Referring the provisions in section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the learned counsel for the Insurer submitted that, the Registration Certificate of the vehicle marked as EX R-3 would show that the seating capacity of the vehicle is only one. The insurance policy for the vehicle marked as Ex R-4 would show that the insurance is only for the driver and Rs.25/- has been collected as additional premium for the limited liability of operation and maintenance. The claimant is a salesman so not covered under the policy.

9. Regarding quantum, the learned counsel for the Insurer of the Auto submitted that, the claim petition itself for Rs.4,00,000/- and the tribunal has awarded it. In the appeal, the claimant seek for enhancement based on the salar