JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanabhapuram.)

1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.12.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanapuram.

2. The appellant herein is the third respondent. The first respondent herein is the claimant. The second and third respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the original claim petition.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008 is as follows:

The petitioner is a student, he was studying in 8th Standard. On 26.02.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in the driver's cabin in an Auto bearing registration No.TN-74-V-3341, the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle capsized and the petitioner sustained injury. He was admitted in CSI Hospital, Kulasekaram and he undergone surgery and took treatment as inpatient from 26.02.2007 to 06.03.2007. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.

4. Brief substance of counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008, is as follows:

The accident happened due to the carelessness and negligence of the petitioner himself. The petitioner did not sustain any loss. The vehicle was insured with the third respondent. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008, is as follows:

The injured was travelling in the cabin of a load Auto. The accident had happened only due to the negligence of the injured. The injured is leading his normal life. The petitioner has to prove that the first respondent has valid driving license. The rate of interest claimed is excessive. The age of the petitioner has to be proved.

6. Two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,288/- as compensation. Against the award, the third respondent approached this Court by way of appeal.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no necessity for the insurer to pay compensation. The injured was a student and not a load man in the goods carrier. The injured was only an unauthorized passenger in a goods carrier and the third respondent has to be exonerated from the liability, the quantum of compensation is excessive and the award has to be set aside.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that admittedly the petitioner travelled only as a passenger and there is no necessity for the insurance company to prove the same. A judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (1) CTC 1 (Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Dharmapuri Town Vs.Nagammal and others) is cited.

9. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was a passenger in the Auto. Disability certificate was already marked. The award fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. The petitioner travelled only in the cabin of the auto. The seating capacity of the load auto is two. A judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (2) TLNJ 275 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Attur Vs. Dhanapal and others) is cited, wherein this Court has awarded compensation for a 12 years old girl, who travelled in a tractor. Another unreported judgment in C.M.A.No.583 of 2008, (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Karaikudi Vs. Lakshmi and others) dated 12.02.2021, is cited, wherein this Court has held that when insurance company collected premium for passengers, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the