The liability of the insurer under a statutory policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of claims made by third parties and the owner of goods or their authorized representatives who travel in the goods vehicle. The court clarified that the insurer is not liable to pay any other claim under a statutory policy.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award dated 20.06.2018, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1599, 1598 of 2017 and 149 of 2015, on the file of the Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruvannamalai.)

The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”.

1. These appeals have been filed against the against the common award dated 20.06.2018, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1599, 1598 of 2017 and 149 of 2015, on the file of the Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruvannamalai.

2. All the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellant in all the appeals is the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in M.C.O.P. Nos.1599, 1598 of 2017 and 149 of 2015, on the file of the Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruvannamalai. The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.No.3347 of 2019 and the respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.3353 of 2019 filed M.C.O.P.Nos.1599 and 1598 of 2017 respectively, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- each as compensation for the death of one Manjula and Lakshmi who died in the accident that took place on 11.05.2014. The 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.4450 of 2019 filed M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2015, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 11.05.2014.

4. The parties are referred to as per the ranks in their claim petitions for the sake of convenience.

5. According to the claimant/claimants in all the appeals, on the date of accident, when the deceased Manjula, Lakshmi and the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2015 were traveling in a Tata Ace goods vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25-AF-6734 belonging to the 1st respondent as a load women and loadmen along with hallow brick stones of the MK Bricks Work at Thalivaikulam to Thandari road from North to South, near a water tank at Madurakaripura village, the driver of the said Tata Ace goods vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and capsized the same and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Manjula and Lakshmi sustained fatal injuries and died in the Hospital on 21.05.2015 and 11.05.2015 respectively and claimant in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2015 sustained severe injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Tata Ace goods vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent. Hence, the claimant/claimants filed compensation against the respondents as owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, for the injuries caused to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2015 and for the death of one Manjula and Lakshmi respectively in M.C.O.P.Nos.1599 and 1598 of 2017.

6. The 1st respondent in all the claim petitions remained exparte before the Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made by the claimant/claimants in their respective claim petitions. The claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.1599 and 1598 of 2017 have to prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Manjula and Lakshmi respectively, to claim compensation. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2015 has to prove the age, avocation and income, injuries sustained and treatment taken by him to claim compensation. According to the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, while the seating capacity of the Tata Ace goods vehicle is only 2 persons, at the time of accident, 4 persons have traveled in the said vehicle. The deceased persons and the injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2015 traveled in the said goods vehicle as unauthorized passengers. Hence, for violation of policy conditions, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions.

8. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The 2nd respondent examined their offi