The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not statutorily required to cover the liability for an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle, based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and decree dated 31.5.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.335 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Perambalur.

(Heard through Physical hearing)

Brief facts of the case is as follows:

On 1.4.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. at V.Agaram village, a Tractor bearing registration No.TN 46 T 1780 belongs to the respondent No.6 herein, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly he applied break, thereby, one Kandan who travelled in the Tractor as loadman sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the tribunal for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the complaint, a case has been registered in Cr.No.95 of 2006 under Section 279, 304(A) of I.P.C.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company contested the case by filing counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the deceased Kandan travelled in --Mudguard---of the Tractor. The tractor is a goods vehicle. The carrying capacity of Tractor is single seater, i.e. driver only. The deceased travelled in the Tractor as unauthorised passenger. Two persons were travelled in the Tractor apart from driver. The first respondent violated the policy conditions. The claimants have to work out their remedy before W.C. Forum. Therefore, Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

3. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P5 were marked. The Branch Manager of the appellant Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 and 2 were marked on the side of the appellant Insurance Company.

4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence, has came to the conclusion that the driver of the Tractor belongs to the respondent No.6 is responsible for the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimants, directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay and recover from the owner of the Tractor viz., Respondent No.6 herein.

5. Dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal on the ground that unauthorised passenger who travelled in a goods vehicle or non-passenger vehicle, Insurer is not statutorily required to cover the liability in respect of such passenger carried in goods vehicle.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents 2 to 5 herein and perused the materials available on record.

7. The appeal is only against the liability fastened against the appellant/Insurance Company by the tribunal. The short point involved in the present appeal is that the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal by raising ground that liability as against the appellant/Insurance Company fixed by the tribunal is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance company, the vehicle involved in the accident is Tractor fitted with Trailor The deceased was travelling in the Tractor which is goods vehicle, Insurer is not liable to pay compensation and the owner of the vehicle alone liable to pay compensation. However, the tribunal has wrongly directed the appellant/ Insurance Company to --Pay and Recover from the owner of the vehicle.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the deceased travelled in a goods vehicle as unauthorised passenger and therefore, the award of the Tribunal is against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS. ASHA RANI AND OTHERS reported in 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had while disagreeing with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY VS. SHRI SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS