Point of Law: It is made clear that since according to the Insurance Company, claim petitions filed by other persons travelling in same vehicle in which claimant was also travelling have been dismissed for default, they do not have any right to seek compensation from the Insurance Company.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed in MCOP.No.160 of 2009 on 31.01.2012 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate -Judge) at Tiruvannamalai - District.)

1. CMA.No.627 of 2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company and CMA.No.1903 of 2016 has been filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate - Judge), Tiruvannamalai District in MCOP.No.160 of 2009.

2. Heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the claimant. Since the owner of the vehicle was set exparte before the Tribunal, notice to the owner of the vehicle is dispensed with by this Court.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the Insurance Company to pay the claimant a sum of Rs.92,000/- as compensation together with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident caused by the insured vehicle. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:

4. The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award questioning its liability since according to them, the claimant is an unauthorised passenger who travelled in the goods vehicle and not entitled for compensation. The case of the claimant as seen from the claim petition is that he was carrying goods belonging to the owner in the goods vehicle and entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident caused by the insured vehicle. However, it is the contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the claimant is an authorised passenger as he along with other persons travelled in the insured vehicle as gratuitous passenger to attend a political meeting and hence, according to them, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation from the Insurance Company.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has filed six documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and two witnesses were examined on his side viz., the claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor who examined him as PW2. On the side of the Insurance Company, three documents were filed which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and one witness was examined namely their official as RW1.

6. As seen from the evidence available on record, it has been the consistent stand of the claimant that he was carrying the goods belonging to the owner, when the accident had happened which resulted in the injuries sustained by him. Even though the Insurance Company has disputed its liability on the ground that the claimant is an unauthorised passenger and not entitled for any compensation, no evidence has been placed on record before the Tribunal to establish their case that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger and an authorised passenger. Even though in their evidence through RW1, it has been deposed by him that other persons who travelled along with the claimant in this Appeal in the very same insured vehicle had also preferred claims against the Insurance Company which were dismissed for default, the number of the claim petitions have also not been disclosed.

7. The Tribunal has considered all these factors and only thereafter has come to the right conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimant. Further the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation of Rs.92,000/-. The Insurance Company has also not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant and has challenged only its li