JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

1. Challenging the award, dated 10/01/2013 passed in MCOP No.101 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Dindigul, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant.

2. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal are as follows:-

(i) On 29.11.2006 at about 19.30 hours the petitioner was travelling in a minidoor vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 57 C 6256 from Trichy to Pudupatti, which was proceeding on Trichy to Manapparai main road from north to south, while nearing Maravanur the said vehicle driver drove it in a r?sh and negligent manner, with uncontrollable speed and turned turtle. So the petitioner sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately he was admitting at City Hospital, Dindigul for treatment.

(ii) Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.502 of 2006 was registered by the Manapparai Police Station for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC against the driver and the said case is pending.

(iii) The petitioner sustained fracture at right elbow and left maxilla. He also sustained abrasion on left eye brow on left frontal. sustained lacerated injuries on muscle deep over lower lip left side and pain all over the body. Two operations were done at right elbow and left maxilla.

(iv) The 2^nd respondent is the owner and the 1st respondent is the previous owner and the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was working as a coolie and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. Since the accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the minidor bearing Registration No.TN 57 C 6256, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner.

3. Before the Tribunal, the third respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim petition and also disputing their liability to pay the compensation contending that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying vehicle and it is intended to carry goods alone and not the passenger. He further contended that the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger and also another 30 unauthorized passengers had travelled in the goods vehicle at the time of accident and thereby violated the policy conditions.

4.During trial, on the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined as RW1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1.

5.Upon consideration of the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,68,500/- as compensation and also directed the 3rd respondent to pay the award amount and thereafter, recover the same from the 1st respondent within a period of two months.

6. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company, the appellant preferred this appeal contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the claimant had travelled as unauthorised/gratuitous passenger in the insured goods vehicle at the time of accident and that such a persons are not covered by Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. It is the further grievance of the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellant to satisfy the award amount at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle even after finding that the victim of the road accident travelled in the goods carrier at the time of accident as unauthorized passenger only.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. Now, this Court has to decide whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable or liable to be set aside?

10.Point The dispute is with regard to liability. Even though, so many grounds were raised in the memorandum of appeal, during the argument, the only grievance put forth by the appellant is that the Tribunal