The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- This petition filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Acts, against the award and decree dated 23.03.2017 in MCOP No.462 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Perambalur.)

The 2nd Respondent in MCOP No.462 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Perambalur, is the appellant herein. They are the insurers of the offending vehicle and claimed that liability to pay compensation should not have been mulcted on them.

2. MCOP No.462 of 2014 had been filed by the two claimants for the death of their son Chelladurai in a road accident which took place on 22.03.2013. It was stated that on that particular date at around 8.00 a.m., Chelladurai was travelling as a cleaner in a Tractor bearing registration No.TN-31-P-9927 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent therein. The vehicle was driven by one Rajasekar. They were both working in Shanmugham cashew-nut groove. While driving the tractor, the driver Rajasekar suddenly applied brakes and as a result, Chelladurai was thrown out of the tractor and fell down in between the two wheels on the left side of the tractor and was run over and died on the spot. It was claimed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. A First Information Report in Crime No.61 of 2013 had been registered by Andimadam Police under Section 304(A) IPC. The claimants / parents of Chelladurai filed the aforementioned claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. A counter had been filed by the 2nd respondent / insurer stating that the deceased was sitting in a casual manner and fell down from the tractor. It was also stated that the accident occurred only owing to the carelessness of the deceased. It was also stated that the vehicle had no valid documents and was also not insured. It was also stated that it was used for commercial purpose. It was further stated that the deceased as a gratuitous passenger and the vehicle being a goods vehicle and the deceased not being a third party and since premium was not paid to cover such accident, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The parties went to trial and the Tribunal framed as a first point for consideration, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and then as a second point, the compensation which is to be paid for the death to the claimants. During trial, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the insurance company / 2nd respondent, RW-1 and RW-4 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 had been marked. The documents marked on behalf of the claimants were primarily to prove identity and relationship. The document marked on behalf of the respondents included the insurance policy Ex.R8, the terms of which will have to be interpreted to determine whether the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation.

5. With respect to the first point framed for consideration, the Tribunal pointed out the evidence of PW-2, who claimed that he was the witness to the accident and noted the manner in which the accident occurred. It was stated that the driver had applied sudden brake and the deceased was thrown out of the tractor and fell down and the back wheel of the tractor run over him. Ex.P1, the First Information Report was also noticed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noticed the evidence of RW-1 and the letter of the Road Transport Officer, Chidambaram. The sitting capacity of the vehicle was only one and there can be no co-passenger or even a passenger in the said vehicle. There was a seat only for the driver of the vehicle.

6. The Tribunal also noticed the evidence of RW-4, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company, who stated that the deceased was actually travelling in the tipper and that the tipper was not insured and that the tractor was a goods vehicle and nobody can travel