COMMON JUDGMENT

*****************

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.693 of 2014, dated 2.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Dindigul.

2.The claim Petitioners are the appellants in C.M.A(MD)No.710 of2020 seeking enhancement of compensation as well as exoneration of liability of second respondent Insurance Company was under challenge. C.M.A(MD)No.1171 of 2021 is filed by the owner of the vehicle as against the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in C.M.A(MD)No.710 of 2020.

4.The claim petitioners both in their petition as well as in the evidence as P.W.1 would depose that on 8.6.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased Krishnan travelling in the first respondent's TATA Ace Mini Door Auto bearing Registration No.TN 57 P 8915 as a Load Man, in Vedasandur to Kumbur Road, near Veriampatti Bridge at that time, driver of the TATA ACE Mini Door Auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner and that auto became capsized from the road, due to the accident, the deceased Krishnan was thrown away and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident had happened only due to the careless, rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver.

5.In the counter statement, the owner of the vehicle stated that the deceased travelled as a Loadman and paid salary of Rs.

8,000/-

6.The second respondent Insurance Company filed a counter statement inter-alia contending that there is a violation of policy condition in the sense that first respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 57 P 8915 has been registered as a Light Goods Vehicle with the seating capacity of two, by the transport authorities. On that basis, this respondent's company has covered the risk of the first respondent's vehicle ie., registered carrying capacity is two in all. No premium is paid to this respondent Insurance Company to cover the risk of the passengers travelled in the first respondent's goods vehicle. At the time of the alleged accident, 20 unauthorized passengers along with the driver ie., totally 21 persons have travelled in the first respondent's goods carrying vehicle. This is not only contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but also against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. By the above manner, the first respondent has used his vehicle by violating the policy conditions.The first respondent has used his goods carrying vehicle for transporting unauthorized passengers. Moreover, as per the First Information Report and claim petition, it is found that the unauthorized passengers/deceased had travelled in the first respondent's goods carrying commercial vehicle for attending a condolence. This respondent's company has not covered the risk of the passengers travelled in the first respondent's goods carrying commercial vehicle.

7.Further, in the instant case, at the material time of accident, it was used for carrying 21 passengers along with insured vehicle driver. On account of use of vehicle in violation of policy condition and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by the second respondent, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the first respondent. As per the policy condition, a person possessing an authorization to drive the transport vehicle (Badge) has to drive the first respondent's goods carrying commercial vehicle. T.Rajkumar has driven the trasport vehicle(Badge) has driven the first respondent's goods carrying vehicle without valid driving licence ie., he has not been authorized to drive the transport vehicle without Badge.

8.During trial, the first appellant is examined as P.W.1 and occurrence witness is examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. The owner of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1. One Mr.Mohammed Ramjeen is examined as R.W.2. The existence of the policy coverage is not disputed by R.W.3, Senior A