The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable for compensation when the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a vehicle and there were violations of policy conditions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 14.11.2019 made in MCOP.No.2243 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No.2, Chennai.)

R. Subramanian, J

1. payment of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Balasubramanyam @ Balakrishna, son of Nagaiah in a motor accident that took place on 20.04.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., is the appellant.

2. According to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, while the deceased, who was working as a Coolie with the owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No.AP-03-W-4630 and the Trailor attached to it bearing Registration No.AP-03-W-4631 was travelling in the Tractor along with the goods namely, sand at about 6.30 p.m., on 20.04.2015, the driver of the Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the deceased falling of the vehicle amd the hook of the Tractor penetrated into the stomach of the deceased and he died at the SVRRGG Hospital at Tirupathi on 21.04.2015. Terming the negligence on the driver of the Tractor as the cause of the accident and contending that the deceased was earning about Rs.500/- per day, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that it cannot be made liable for the claim, in view of the fact that the deceased has travelled in a Tractor, which is a special type of vehicle, in which, there is no room for any person to travel, except the driver. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would also contend that the vehicle could be used only for agricultural purpose and admittedly, the vehicle was used for transporting sand, which is in violation of the policy conditions. It is the further contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased, being the employee of the owner of the Tractor, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

4. At trial, before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Nagaraju, an eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondent / Insurance Company one Senthilvel, Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. The Tribunal rejected the defence of the Insurance Company based on the violation of policy condition as well as on the question of liability and arrived at the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and reserved their right to pay and recover at a later point of time. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company is on appeal.

5. We have heard Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company and Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents.

6. Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the deceased having travelled in a Tractor, being an unauthorized passenger, the Tribunal ought not to have directed pay and recover. Drawing our attention to the RC Book of the Tractor, which shows that the permitted capacity is only one and that too, to the driver. The learned counsel would contend that Rule 28 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules prohibits the driver from carrying or allowing any person to be carried on a Tractor. He would also invite our attention to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which according to him does not require the Insurance Company to cover unauthorized persons travelling in a Tractor.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.K.Suresh and Another reported in 2009 (1) LW