The insurance company is not bound to indemnify the insurer for the loss or injury caused to a person who had traveled as a passenger in a goods vehicle, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No. 96 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Paramakudi dated 04.04.2012.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), at Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2007 dated 04.04.2012 by the appellant/second respondent insurance company challenging the quantum and liability.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2007.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:

On 06.06.2006, the petitioner travelled with vegetables bags in a Eicher namely, Madurai Carriers bearing registration No.TN-58-M-7089 from Madurai to Ramnad and at about 06.00 p.m., when the lorry was nearing T.Pappankulam diversion, both the front tyres bursted and as the result of which, the lorry capsized. The petitioner and other loadmen sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner sustained five grievous injuries on his right humerous, Radius left ulnar, styloid, 5th MC left and right scalpula. Immediately the petitioner was taken to Madurai Rajaji Hospital for treatment and on the same day, he was discharged from Madurai Rajaji Hospital. Thereafter, he was admitted as in patient in Pioneer Hospital Private Limited for treatment. He suffered permanent disability and as the result of which, he filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2007 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury sustained by the petitioner.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company in which the first respondent has insured his vehicle. The second respondent has filed a counter before the learned Tribunal refuting the allegations put forth in the claim petition stated that the first respondent's driver had violated the policy conditions, permit conditions and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, thereby, permitting the petitioner to travel as the passenger in goods carrier vehicle and hence, claimed that the second respondent is not entitled to indemnify the first respondent.

5. The learned Tribunal had framed two issues. The learned Tribunal examined two witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the side of the petitioner and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked and on the side of the respondents three witnesses were examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. After careful consideration of the evidence deposed by both the parties and also oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the arguments put forth by both the parties, the learned Tribunal concluded that the first respondent's driver is responsible for the accident. Since he had violated the policy conditions by permitting passengers to travel in a goods carrier, the learned Tribunal passed an order directing the second respondent to pay a total award of Rs.1,79,163/- and thereafter recover the same from the first respondent. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under following heads :-

6. Challenging the same, the second respondent insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the first respondent, who remained exparte before the learned Tribunal, has passed away. The pertin