The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for accidents involving the insured vehicle, even if the claimant is a gratuitous passenger.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order and Decree dated 10.10.2017, made in M.C.O.P.No.2685 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. The owner of the vehicle, against whom the liability to pay the compensation has been fixed, is before this Court with this appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal are the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of their eight year old son.

3. According to the claimants on 07.12.2014, the deceased Yuvaraj was walking along with his two classmates in Kotha Thimapuram village. At that time, a tractor bearing Registration No.AP-03-BF-6754, owned by the appellant and driven by his driver came on the way and the driver of the vehicle Kasi asked the children to get into the tractor for a ride. While the deceased tried to climb the tractor, the driver in a rash and negligent manner drove the tractor, in which, the claimants’ son fell down between the front and back tyre and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. For the rash and negligent driving of the tractor belonging to the appellant and insured with the third respondent/insurance company, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The appellant, owner of the tractor contested the claim petition stating that the deceased and two other school going children ran behind the tractor and tried to claim the rotator, which was attached to the tractor, without the knowledge of the driver and in that process, slipped down and sustained fatal injuries, the accident had not taken place due to the negligence of the driver. The insurance company also filed counter affidavit stating that the policy covers liability in respect of the driver of the tractor alone and it does not cover any other person travelling in the tractor. Further, the owner of the vehicle allowed the deceased and others to travel in the tractor in violation of the policy condition, hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further stated that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and hence no liability can be fixed on the insurance company. It is further stated that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive and highly speculative.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the eyewitness to the occurrence was examined as P.W.2. Apart from that as many as 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the third respondent herein, a representative of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and marked as many as three exhibits as Ex.R1 to R3 including the chargesheet filed in the criminal court.

6. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. As far as the liability for payment of compensation is concerned, based on the FIR, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger and fell down and sustained fatal injuries, further held that, the insurance policy covers the driver alone and it does not cover gratuitous passengers. That apart, as the policy only covers the driver of the tractor alone, hence the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, and fixed the liability on the appellant/owner of the vehicle. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-, which is payable by the appellant/owner of the vehicle with interest at 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved over the same, the owner of the vehicle is before this Court with this appeal.

7. The learned co