The main legal point established was the requirement for vehicles to be covered under insurance policies and the implications of unauthorized passengers in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Cuddalore in M.C.O.P. No. 29 of 2009, dated 19.07.2016 for awarding compensation.

1. The appellant is the first respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore) in M.C.O.P. No. 29 of 2009 dated 19.07.2016.

2. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are the wife and children of one Nallathambi, who had died in a road accident on 19.11.2008. The claimants would contend that the said Nallathambi, who is aged about 30 years, was a mason, earning a sum of Rs.250/- per day. On 13.11.2008 at about 14.30 hours, he was travelling on the Othiyadikuppam to Thirumanikuzhi Road in a tipper loaded with paddy, which was being towed by a tractor bearing Registration No. TN 31 AA 5905. The said Nallathambi was seated on the gunny bags, which was fully loaded on the tipper. The driver of the tractor was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of this, the hook of the tipper got released from the tractor, as a result of which, Nallathami had fallen down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore for first aid and later referred to the Government Hospital, Puducherry and treated for the injuries sustained in the accident. Despite the best efforts of the Doctors, the said Nallathambi died on 19.11.2008. The claimants therefore sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The appellant/first respondent had entered appearance and filed his counter, in which, he would submit that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He would submit that the vehicle had a valid RC, insurance and the Driver is also licenced to drive the vehicle. He would deny the income set forth by the claimants as also the occupation of the deceased. The first respondent would take up a plea that the tractor is insured and since the tipper is attached to the tractor, there was no necessity to take a separate insurance for the tipper. He would further submit that since there is a valid policy coverage, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the appellants.

4. The second respondent-Insurance Company has filed a counter inter-alia contending that the Tractor alone was insured with them. The tipper was not insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. They had further contended that the driver of the first respondent did not have a valid driving licence and the tractor did not possess a valid permit, fitness and registration certificate at the time of accident. Therefore, they would submit that they are not liable to compensate the claimants. In the additional written statement, they would further submit that the tipper was not registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act. In the RC book of the first respondent's vehicle, only the tractor has been registered and not the tipper. Therefore, there is a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Admittedly, the deceased had travelled in the tipper at the time of the accident and the insurance Company had denied the contention of the first respondent that since the tipper is attached to the tractor, the tipper would also be covered by the policy taken for the tractor.

6. The Tribunal below, after considering the evidence, by its order dated 19.07.2016, held that the accident had occurred only on account of the driving of the driver of the first respondent's tractor. The Tribunal has not framed an issue with reference to the liability of the second respondent to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal has held that the appellant/ first respondent has violated the permit Rules and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the claimants and ultimately, proceeded to pass an Award for a sum of Rs.4,94,000/-