Insurance liability does not extend to unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle; coverage is limited to driver only under statutory terms.

JUDGMENT :

DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The Appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi in M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2016, vide order dated 28.10.2020.

2. The Appellant is the Insurer of the Eicher Tractor bearing registration No:TN 23- BW 6974 (FIR, Insurance policy and RC indicates the vehicle Number is TN 23 BW 6978) used for carrying sewage. The owner of the vehicle is one Indirani, W/o Nagendiran. The accident victim Pandian was working as a cooliee under her for loading and unloading the sewage. The claimants are the wife and 3 children of late Pandian.

3.On 12.10.2015, at about 16.00 hrs. inside ‘Vani Tech Company’, Valayampatti Campus, after loading sewage and proceeding to unload, the tractor capsized after the driver of the tractor lost control due to the sudden bursting of the front wheel tyre. In the said accident, the victim Pandian, who was travelling in the tractor next to the driver got crushed. He was admitted in the hospital for treatment but succumbed to the injuries on 26.10.2015.

4.Case was registered by the Vaniyambadi Taluk Police in Crime No:267 of 2015, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the tractor for causing death due to rash and negligent driving. Claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs , the claim petition laid.

5.The Insurance company/the appellant herein contested the claim both on liability and quantum. The complaint to the police given by the sister of the victim was only on 27.10.2015, the next to the death and not on the date of accident ie 12.10.2015. The complaint given belatedly without assigning any reason for delay by a person, who is admittedly not a witness to the accident, cannot be relied upon for the date, time and the cause of accident.

6.The vehicle bearing registration No:TN 23 BW 6974 is a tractor with a single seat for driver meant for agricultural purposes only. It is not for transporting sewage. The insurance coverage is only for the tractor and not for the trailer or any attachment to it. Additional premium of Rs.50/- is paid by the owner only to cover the driver and not others. Since the co-traveller is not covered, the insurer is not legally liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Except the driver, no additional seating is permitted for the said vehicle. The claimants admit that the victim was travelling in the tractor sitting in the driver seat along with the driver. This is violation of policy condition as well as permit condition. The accident occurred inside the private premises and it was not a road accident for insurance coverage.

7.The Tribunal considering the rival submissions and after examining PW-1, PW-2 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 relied by the claimants and the oral evidence of RW-1 and RW-2, the documentary evidence Ex.R-1, awarded compensation of Rs.23,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% interest and ordered the insurance company to pay the same and recover from the owner of the vehicle.

8.Mr.D.Bhaskaran, the Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the liability aspect properly. It has ignored the terms of insurance policy and permit given to the vehicle. Relying on overruled judgment, the Tribunal had awarded compensation and ordered ‘pay and recovery’. As per The RC book for the vehicle, the seating capacity is only one (i.e) for the driver. The permit is only for agricultural purpose and not for commercial purpose to transport sewage. The vehicle is not designed to carry any person other than the driver. The policy covers only third party risk under IMT 28. Un-authorised passengers are not covered in the policy.

9. In supp