The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is exonerated from liability when there is a fundamental violation of the policy condition, and the principle of 'pay' and 'recover' applies in appropriate cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 25.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.646 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal which has fastened the liability to indemnify the insured, despite violation of policy condition, this Appeal is preferred by the insurer.

3. On 29.05.2013, at about 01.00 hours, Muthu who was sitting next to the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.TN-31-AU-7672, with trailer bearing registration No.TN-46-7714 was thrown out from the moving tractor due to the rash driving of the tractor driver. The wheels of the trailer ran over him and caused instant death. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the tractor based on the First Information Report given by Natarajan, the father of the deceased. As per the F.I.R, when he along with his family members proceeding in the trailer attached tractor to attend a marriage, the driver drove the tractor very fast and rashly. So his son Muthu, who was sitting on the engine guard asked the driver to stop the vehicle. When the driver applied break suddenly, his son was thrown out from the tractor. The right side wheels of the trailer ran over his son and his son died on the spot. However, the version about the accident as found in the F.I.R was changed by the claimants. Alleging the police had drafted the F.I.R to fit their convenience and to exonerate the vehicle owner, gave a different version in the Court as if the accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a cleaner carrying tools for the first respondent field.

4. Claim petition was filed against the owner of the trailer, its insurer and the owner of the tractor. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was sought as compensation, based on the factors that the deceased was 20 years old Bachelor earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as cleaner. His parents and younger brother and sister were dependants on his income.

5. In the counter filed by the insurer of the trailer, who is the appellant herein contended that the deceased and his family were travelling in the tractor attached trailer as unauthorised passengers. The deceased was sitting next to the tractor driver fell and died. In a tractor, only the driver is permitted and no passenger is permitted to travel. If any person accompany the driver in a tractor, he is not an authorised passenger. The Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the claim of unauthorised/gratuitous passenger travelling in violation of policy condition. The new version of the accident contrary to the F.I.R is far from truth. Anyhow, the trailer alone cannot run. The tractor driver alone is responsible for the accident and failure to implead the insurer of the tractor is fatal to the claim. Further, it was contended that the tractor is to be used only for agricultural purpose. The trailer can be used for carrying agricultural and forest products and not human beings. When there is no coverage for the passengers, the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to indemnify the trailer owner.

6. The Tribunal rejected the version found in the F.I.R. Accepted the altered version of the claimants that, the deceased was travelling in the tractor as cleaner to unload the motor accessories in the land of the 1st respondent. Relying upon Ex.R-1, the Insurance policy copy, held that both the tractor and the trailer were insured under the 2nd respondent and there is no violation of policy condition. Having held so, awarded a sum of Rs.10,97,000/- as compensation with 7.5% p.a interest.

7. Aggrieved, the present Appeal is filed by the insurance company on the ground that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the c