The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding the liability of the insurer for unauthorized passengers and the applicability of an 'Act only policy'.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2012, dated 07.07.2020, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2012, dated 07.07.2020, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2012, is as follows: On 30.10.2010, at about 9.00 pm., when the petitioner was travelling in a load 407 vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-41-C-5401, as a load woman, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle capsized. The petitioner sustained injuries. She was taken to Karur G.C. Hospital and she took treatment as inpatient till 10.11.2010. The petitioner was earning Rs.6,000/- as a load woman and she sustained disability and she claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2012, is as follows: It is wrong to state that the claimant is a load woman. The manner of accident is wrongly mentioned in the petition. The vehicle is a goods carrier. At the time of accident, including the claimant 32 persons travelled as unauthorized passengers. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The vehicle was insured by a firm, namely, “Sri Srinivasa Pillows” and the firm is a necessary party to the case. The first respondent was not having valid driving licence. The claim is excessive.

5. On the side of the claimant, 3 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. On the side of the second respondent, 1 witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. 1 Document was marked as Court document. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,800/- as compensation.

6. Against the order, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

6.1.The policy – Ex.R1 is only a 'Act only policy'. As per the policy, there is no liability for the Insurance Company to the occupants of the private vehicle. Only in the case of “comprehensive” or “package policy”, the occupants of a private car is covered. A passenger travelling in a vehicle is not a third party. The Tribunal has failed to note that the vehicle is only a goods vehicle, intended to carry only goods. No passenger, other than the driver can travel in the said vehicle and no premium to cover the risk of any occupant of the vehicle other than its driver was paid by the owner.

6.2.The F.I.R clearly reveals that 40 persons travelled in the goods, to attend a family function. The claimant, who marked the F.I.R, is bound by the wordings in the F.I.R. Rule 238 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, prohibits to carry passengers in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal failed to consider the various judgments of the Apex Court and failed to consider that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for an unauthorized passenger in a goods carrier. The Tribunal is wrong in applying multiplier method in fixing the compensation. The amount awarded is excessive.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Insurance policy is “ Act only policy”. The policy covers only a third party and not the occupants of the vehicle. On the date of the accident, including the claimant, 40 persons travelled in the goods carrier. They travelled to attend some function that there was no goods available in the vehicle. It is wrong to state that the claimant travelled as a load woman.

8. P.W.1 has deposed that 32 passengers travelled in the vehicle. All of t