The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of an individual in a road accident if the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and not covered by the insurance policy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi.)

1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.25,06,000/- for the death of one Sathishkumar in a road accident that occurred on 19.04.2012 at about 12.00 hours.

2. According to the claimants, while the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-33-AR-4155, owned by the fifth respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein, the said lorry capsized resulting fatal injuries to the deceased Sathishkumar. The claimants are father, mother, sister and brother of the deceased. At the time of accident, he was aged about 25 years and he was a driver of a Poclain.

3. The claimants contended that the deceased had travelled in the lorry to reach the area where the Poclain was working as a change driver. However, the said lorry capsized resulting in the accident. The owner of the lorry remained exparte.

4. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants. It was the main contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the lorry and therefore, he is not covered by the policy. It was the further contention of the Insurance Company that the compensation claimed is on the higher side.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, father of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr.Kotteshwaran, an eyewitness, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P18 were marked on the side of the claimants. One Mr.Suresh Kumar, manager of first respondent company was examined as RW1.

6. The Tribunal, on an assumption that the deceased would have been employed as a driver in the lorry at some point of time, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs.25,06,000/-. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company is an appeal. Though notice served, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through counsel.

7. Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that once it is shown that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a lorry, the Tribunal was not justified in making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel would draw our attention to the policy, which provides coverage of the driver and 4 employees under the Workmen Compensation Act. He would also invite our attention to the claim statement itself, wherein the claimants have averred that the deceased was working as poclain operator with one Arunagiri of Bhrummadesam and he was travelling in the lorry as a passenger to reach the work spot. He would also draw our attention to the evidence of R.W.1, manager of the fifth respondent herein/owner of the lorry, who had specifically deposed that the deceased had travelled in the lorry to reach the work spot to relieve the driver of the Poclain. Relevant portion of the evidence, which is relied upon by the learned counsel, reads as follows:-

IMAGE TAMIL

8. It is also seen that the owner of the lorry and owner of the Poclain are different persons and not the same entity. In the light of the above evidence, it is clear that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a lorry and he is not covered by the policy of the Insurance Company. If there is no coverage, the Tribunal ought not to have made the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation on assumptions. When clear evidence is available on record to show that the employer was different, the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Insurance Company would be liable on the assumption that the deceased would have been employed as a driver by the owner of the lorry.

9. In the light of the above, it is clear to our mind tha