The violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act absolves the insurance company from liability to compensate unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 28th day of September 2018, made in M.C.O.P. No. 699 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sangagiri and be pleased to dismiss the above claim and thus render justice.

1. The issue involved in the above appeal is whether the petitioner who had travelled as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle can claim compensation from the owner of the vehicle in which he has travelled for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that had occurred while the petitioner was so traveling. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The parties herein below are referred to as the same ranking as before the Lower Court (Sub Court).

2. The petitioner/claimant would submit that he is a 22 year old power loom mechanic earning a monthly income of Rs.7,500/-. On 20.09.2012 he and his four friends had travelled in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration no. TN 52 B 9331 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, for visiting a temple. In the claim petition the said claimant would state that he had visited the Kalwadangam Temple. After taking a bath in the river Cauvery and worshiping at the temple he was returning in the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No. TN 52 B 9331. The vehicle was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed. The said vehicle was proceeding from west to east on the Kalvadangam to Edapedi main road. The driver who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and at an uncontrollable speed applied a sudden brake as a result of which the vehicle had skidded on the left side of the main road and resulted in the accident. On account of the accident the petitioner was seriously injured in his right elbow, left shoulder, right ankle and right foot etc. He was immediately admitted in the Edapadi Government Hospital and since there was a fracture he was taken to the Neurotech Foundation at Salem and admitted there.

3. The petitioner/claimant would submit that he had taken treatment from 23.09.2012 till 05.10.2012 as an inpatient and had expended a sum of over Rs.1,00,000/-. By reason of the accident he was unable to walk, sit, lift weight etc. He would submit that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Ace and, he has to be compensated with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The defence by the 2nd respondent/insurance company was that the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger in the vehicle and therefore, the insurance company is not under any liability to compensate him as per the Judgment reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, 2008 ACJ (2) 721.

5. However, the Tribunal below has proceeded to award compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and recovered it later from the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle. Challenging the above award the insurance company is before this Court.

6. Mr. Vinod appearing on behalf of the insurance company would submit that the case of the petitioner is that he is a power loom mechanic, however the accident has taken place when he had travelled in the goods vehicle to visit temple. The said vehicle is not a passenger vehicle. That apart, the petitioner who had come forward with a claim statement that he was on a visit to the temple along with his friends and that they had a bath at Cauvery River and then worshiped at the temple, had changed his version in his deposition. In his deposition, the petitioner would contend that he had gone to immerse the Vinayagar statue and therefore he had hired the vehicle for carrying the Vinayagar idol. Therefore, the counsel would submit that the entire claim appears to be a concocted one. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger the insurance company canno