In motor accident litigation, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and subsequently recover the amount from the vehicle owner under the 'Pay and Recovery' principle, notwithstanding disputes over premium payments or the specific status of the victim as a laborer or passenger.

JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 23.06.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Sivagangai.

2.The petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2021 are the appellants herein. The respondents in the claim petition are the respondents herein.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2021 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

On 26.10.2021, the deceased Murugan was travelling as a loadman in the 1st respondent’s Eicher Lorry bearing registration number TN 63 AF 6112 from Alangudi to Singampunari. At about 2.00 a.m., when the vehicle was coming near the green bamboo Ayyanar Koil Arch in A.Thekkoor to Singampunari road, the driver of the said lorry had driven in a rash and negligent manner from north to south and the lorry capsized. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. The deceased Murugan was earning Rs.20,000/- as a loadman. The vehicle was insured with the 2^nd respondent/ Insurance Company at the time of the accident. An F.I.R. in Crime No.120 of 2021 was registered by the Nerkuppai police station. Hence, the petitioners/claimants who are dependents of the deceased Murugan filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

5.The 1 respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6.The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company objected to the claim petition by contending that three unauthorized persons, including the deceased Murugan, were travelling on the roof of the vehicle. The deceased travelled on the top of the lorry and did not sit in the cabin. The deceased was not a loadman of the vehicle. So, it is a clear violation of policy conditions and the MV Act and Rules. There was no premium collected to cover the risk of the loadman. Since it was a policy package, no cover has been extended to cover the risk of loadman. The driver of the offending vehicle was also not having a valid driving license. Hence, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any claim from the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company.

7.Before the Tribunal, on the petitioners' side, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. On the 2nd respondent's side, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Ex.R.1 was marked. In addition, Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 were also marked.

8. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has passed the impugned award by holding that the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle was responsible for the accident; that since the 1st respondent allowed the passengers travelling outside the cabin without any premium to cover risk, the 1st respondent alone was liable to pay compensation and that the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an award granting total compensation of Rs.16,91,000/-, directing the 1^st respondent to pay the same. The claim petition was dismissed in respect of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

9.Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners/claimants submitted that the insurance policy is a commercial vehicle policy for the period from 14.03.2021 to 13.03.2022. T