The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in cases involving unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles and the application of the pay and recovery principle.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the appeals and modify the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.242 & 640 of 2009 dated 27.06.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sessions Judge Communal Clash Cases Court, Madurai and fix the liability on the respondents as the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the appellants.)

Common Judgment:

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the claimants challenging the common award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.242 of 2009 and 640 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai wherein the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petitions as against the Insurance Company.

2. The claimants in both the claim petitions are the legal heirs of one Ramasamy and one Ramakrishnan who had travelled on the back side of a goods vehicle for the purpose of loading and un-loading purposes. According to the claimants, the deceased persons were Carpenters by profession and they had travelled on the back side of the vehicle along with finished wooden items and kadappa stones as per the direction of the owner of the goods vehicle who had hired the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. According to the claimants, the vehicle was driven from Thiruparankundram to Tenkasi. While the vehicle was nearing Puliankudi, the driver of the first respondent, had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he had lost the control of the vehicle. Suddenly, he applied brake and therefore, the kadappa stones which were carried in the vehicle, hit the deceased on his forehead and thereby, caused deep cut injury. The deceased was taken to the nearby Hospital where he was declared dead. The deceased being a Carpenter by profession was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- and a claim was made for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in each one of the claim petition.

3. The owner of the vehicle had remained exparte and the Insurance Company had filed a counter in both the claim petitions contending that the deceased persons were not travelling as load man in the said vehicle. They were travelling only as un-authorized passengers/gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and therefore, the Company is not liable to pay any compensation for the death of the said persons. The Insurance Company also disputed the quantum of compensation as prayed for in the claim petitions.

4. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the driver of the vehicle alone had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and when he applied brake, the deceased persons along with kadappa stones have fallen down from the vehicle which resulted in the accident. The Tribunal relied upon the F.I.R lodged by one co-passengers of the vehicle which was marked as Exhibit P1 and the said informant was also examined as PW2.

5. The Tribunal further found that the cases projected by the claimants in their claim petitions that the deceased persons were load men was not supported by their own evidence. The claimants have deposed that the deceased persons were not load men. Based upon the depositions of PW1 and PW3, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the deceased persons were not load men but gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. The deceased persons have not travelled in the cabin, but they have travelled only on the top of the goods vehicle and therefore, they cannot have been considered to be covered by the policy as owners or representatives of the goods. The Tribunal proceeded to fix the compensation at Rs.10,36,000/- in MCOP.No.242 of 2009 and a sum of Rs.8,80,120/- in MCOP.No.640 of 2009. Since the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the deceased persons have travelled in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions as against the Insurance Company and had passed an award as against the owner of the