JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the exoneration of the liability of the second respondent / Insurance Company by the Tribunal under the impugned award dated 25.09.2014 passed by the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Villupuram in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.620 of 2009.

2. The Tribunal under the impugned award has exonerated the second respondent / Insurance Company from any liability on the ground that the deceased Narasammal was an unauthorised passenger in the insured vehicle and the appellants / claimants are not entitled for compensation.

3. The appellants are the claimants who are the Legal Representatives and dependants of the deceased have preferred claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal under the award after exonerating the liability of the second respondent / Insurance Company directed the first respondent to pay the appellants / claimants a compensation of Rs.4,08,000/-

together with interests and costs.

5. The appellants have challenged the impugned award on the ground that despite the fact that the second respondent before the Tribunal has not pleaded that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorised passenger, the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the liability of the second respondent / Insurance Company. According to them, the Tribunal failed to understand the nature of the accident viz., that the deceased while getting down from the insured lorry after the sugarcane was partly loaded, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the deceased falling down from the vehicle resulting in her death.

6. Heard Mr.T. Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the appellants /

claimants and Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 1st respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal and in particular, he referred to paragraph No.23 of the claim petition, which narrates as to how the accident happened, which resulted in the death of Narasammal.

According to him, Narasammal was not an unauthorised passenger in the insured vehicle and she died while getting down from the lorry, after loading sugarcane into the said lorry and only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle, she fell down and was run over by the lorry, which resulted in her death.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to the impugned award and in particular, he referred to the discussion with regard to point No.2 made by the Tribunal and would submit that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured lorry, the accident had happened and the deceased was not an unauthorised passenger.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants would also plead before this Court that, since it is a policy violation as held by the Tribunal, the second respondent / Insurance Company ought to have been directed to pay the compensation to the appellants / claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (insured). However, according to him, erroneously even that relief was not granted to the appellants /

claimants.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent /

Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle and there was no insurance coverage for any unauthorised passenger falling within the purview of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

11. The learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company also drew the attention of this Court to the claim petition filed by the appellants / claimants and in particular, he referred to Sl. Nos.4 and 5 therein and would submit that the appellants / claimants have themselves pleaded that the deceased was a sugarcane cutting lady and loading worker an