The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation due to non-coverage of the policy for the deceased as a loadwoman.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thanjavur in MCOP.No.338 of 2015 dated 20.04.2017.)

1. The above appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur in MCOP.No.338 of 2015 primarily on the ground of liability.

2. According to the claim petition, the deceased claimant was travelling in a Tata Ace Goods Vehicle on 13.10.2014 for the purpose of laying of Thar road. The deceased was sitting on the vehicle for the purpose of loading blue metal on a later point of time. The driver of the Tata Ace drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased had fallen from the vehicle on the road and she scummed to the injuries. The claimants have sought for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs towards compensation.

3.According to the claimants, the deceased was a coolie woman and she was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month.

4. The owner of the Tata Ace had remained exparte and the second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle and she was not a loadwoman. As per policy terms and conditions, no person shall be allowed to travel in the place where the goods are loaded. They had further contended that the loadwoman is allowed to load and unload the goods, only when the vehicle is stationed. The Insurance company had further contended that the F.I.R has been lodged by a co-passenger which reveals that all of them have travelled in the Tata Ace vehicle only as coolies and not as owners of the goods or loadwomen.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace belonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal further found that the driver of Tata Ace was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The Tribunal had further found that the deceased had travelled in the vacant goods carriage only as a loadwoman. The policy being a package policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

6.The Tribunal had relied upon the judgement of the Hon''ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court reported in 2016 1 TN MAC 606 (DB) (Guj.)( New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Rekhaben Bharatkumar Nanalal Thakkar and others) and also the judgement of our High Court reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 184 ( New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Vs.Murugan) had arrived at a finding that if a loadman had travelled in goods carriage, even without payment of any additional premium, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the death or injury of the said loadman.

7. The Tribunal had fixed the monthly income at Rs.8,750/- and added 30% towards future prospects and arrived at a monthly income of Rs.11,375/-. Thereafter, 1/4th towards personal expenses was deducted and finally, monthly income was arrived at Rs.8,531/-, by applying multiplier of 13, the Tribunal had arrived at a compensation of Rs.13,30,836/- under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal had further awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, totally a sum of Rs.14,55,836/- has been awarded. This award is under challenge in the present appeal.

8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, the deceased had travelled in a goods carriage not as owner or representative of the goods. Admittedly, the vehicle was empty at the time of accident. The deceased and few others have travelled in the said vehicle only as gratuitous passengers at the time of accident. The F.I.R has been lodged by the husband of the deceased and in the said F.I.R, there is no reference that the deceased had travelled as loadwoman. The learned counsel had further