In cases of unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles, if a valid insurance policy exists, the insurer is liable to indemnify the claimants and satisfy the award, with the right to recover the paid amount from the vehicle's owner.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.6.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.82/2010(OLD NO.1024/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,19,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and award dated 22.06.2013 passed in MVC No.82/2010 (Old No.1024/2009) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Channagiri.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 07.04.2008 one K.T.Manjunath met with an accident and died subsequently. His wife, son and parents filed a claim for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. However, the Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.5,19,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that K.T.Manjunath was an unauthorized passenger sitting in a goods vehicle and it is a three wheeler closed goods auto and it had no seating capacity, except for driver. But it is stated that Manjunath was travelling in a goods auto, sitting by the side of driver unauthorizedly and he was not carrying any goods. The Mahazar indicates that goods auto was empty and was not carrying any goods. The policy of Insurance does not cover the risk of any persons in the goods auto, as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal did not properly appreciate their defence and the evidence on record while passing the order. Though policy does not cover the risk of any passenger other than driver, the Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the compensation. It is a three-wheeler goods auto, and as per the RC extract of respondent No.1, its permitted carrying capacity is only one person. No person other than the driver is permitted to travel in the auto. The said K.T.Manjunath has not filed any document to show that he purchased the goods and was bringing the goods in the said auto. The shop owner from whom the deceased is alleged to have purchased the goods has not been examined. There is also no documentary evidence to show that the goods were purchased from the said shop. Further, no material has been produced to establish that the deceased had purchased the goods for the purpose of selling them in his shop. No documents have been filed to show that he was running a shop or that goods were being sold to customers from his shop. The mahazar and the charge sheet also do not disclose that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as the owner of the goods. Thus, he is an unauthorized passenger and the Insurance is not covered. The Tribunal considered the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and stated that he was travelling in the auto with the goods and the said finding is to be set aside. Therefore, the Insurance Company requested to exonerate them from the liability.

5. On Perusal of the record, it shows that K.T.Manjunath was travelling in goods auto bearing Reg.No.KA-17/1624 as an owner of the goods from Santhebennur and Kulenur and when the auto was proceeding between Santhebenn