The insurer is not liable for compensation when claimants are unauthorized passengers without goods in the vehicle, affirming that coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act extends only to authorized representatives traveling with goods.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.485 and 486 of 2014, dated 19.09.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal Subordinate Court for MCOP cases, Madurai.

2. The appellant/Insurer who was mulcted with liability to pay compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- with interest and costs to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.485 of 2014 and Rs.1,38,000/- with interest and costs to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.486 of 2014 for the disability suffered by them consequent to an accident occurred on 28.10.2013, challenged the liability mulcted on it.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original petition.

4. During enquiry, the evidence came to be recorded in M.C.O.P.No.485 of 2014. The claimants have examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and examined one Ramasamy as P.W.3 and exhibited 23 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.23. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent/Insurer examined its Legal Officer as R.W.1 and exhibited the copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.R.1 and three disability certificates came to be marked as Exs.C.1 to C.3. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings and evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed a common order dated 19.09.2019 holding that the first respondent's driver was responsible for the accident, directing the second respondent Insurer to pay compensation to both the claimants as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Insurer has preferred the present two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

5. The claimants alleged that on October 28, 2013, Singaram, his son Pandiselvan, and Muthiah hired a TATA 407 van (TN-63-6667) from the first respondent to attend the Melapalayam weekly cattle market in Tirunelveli District. While traveling on Madurai to Tuticorin NH-45B road near Tharaganendhal Vilakku at around 7:30 a.m., the van's right rear wheel burst due to the driver's rash and negligent driving, causing the van to capsize. The claimants sustained injuries and received treatment at Government Hospital, Kariyapatti, and were later referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. They attributed the accident to the driver's negligence and claimed that the van's owner (first respondent) and insurer (second respondent) are liable for compensation.

6. The main defence of the second respondent is that the claimants and many more persons travelled in the said vehicle as unauthorised passengers, that the said vehicle was permitted to transport goods and not passengers, that there were no goods taken in the vehicle at the time of accident and that since the owner of the vehicle has used the vehicle against the provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and Rules, the second respondent – Insurer cannot be made liable.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurer would submit that the Tribunal failed to note that the claimants were travelling in the said vehicle as unauthorised passengers, that the Tribunal also failed to notice that there were no goods in the said vehicle at the time of accident and as such, the claimants were not travelling as owners of the goods, that though the claimants have alleged that they have proceeded to Tirunelveli for the purchase of buffaloes, the claimants have not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim and that since the claimants were unauthorised passengers of the said vehicle and not as the owner of the goods, no liability can be fastened on the Ins