Insurance liability is limited to the number of passengers as specified in the vehicle's registration, and insurers are not obligated to cover claims for unauthorized passengers.

JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. The issue involved in both the appeals is common and hence, they are heard and disposed of through this common judgment.

2. The Insurance Company has filed CMA No.1515 of 2023 questioning the liability for payment of compensation to the 1^st respondent fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Salem (for short, the Tribunal below) in MCOP No.94 of 2020 by award dated 15.6.2022. The claimant filed an appeal in CMA No.3080 of 2023 challenging the same award seeking for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 24.6.2019 at about 12.10 p.m, the claimant was traveling in a TATA Ace Vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-30-BT-3128 for supplying water cans to various shops, that when the said vehicle came from Salem – Bhavani Main Road and was nearing Sankari ATC Depot, the driver of the said vehicle hit the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-30-BD-1200, which was coming in the opposite direction, that due to rash and negligent driving, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and that yet another person, who was traveling in the same vehicle viz., one Mr.Ajith Kumar died due to the accident on 27.6.2019.

4. The claimant sustained fracture in his left femur bone and left mandible region and underwent surgery and he had also incurred expenses towards treatment. It was under these circumstances, the claim petition in MCOP No.94 of 2020 came to be filed by the appellant in CMA.No.3080 of 2023.

5. The Tribunal below, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that it was only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA ACE vehicle, the accident had taken place. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded further to fix the compensation payable by the Insurance company.

6. The Insurance Company took a very specific stand that as per Ex.R2 policy, the liability covers only two persons viz., driver plus one person. However, totally three persons had traveled in the vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance company denied the liability in so far as the claimant in MCOP.No.94 of 2020 was concerned.

7. The Tribunal below, while considering this issue, came to a conclusion that two persons had traveled in the vehicle as “load men” and that they were utilized for the purpose of loading and unloading of water cans. Therefore, it was held that there was no policy violation.

8. The Tribunal below thereafter proceeded to fix the compensation under various heads and in so far as MCOP No.94 of 2020 was concerned, it fixed a total compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

9. The claimant, not satisfied with the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal below, filed CMA.No.3080 of 2023 seeking for enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company denying their liability to pay any compensation to the claimant in MCOP.No.94 of 2020, filed CMA No.1515 of 2023.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record. This Court has also carefully considered the award passed by the Tribunal below.

12. It will be more appropriate to take up the appeal filed by the Insurance company since it touches upon their liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. Depending upon the result in this appeal, the issue as to whether the compensation has to be enha