C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

Challenging the pay and recovery order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P. Nos.252 & 253 of 2013 dated 27.12.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvannamalai.

2. Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both appeals submitted that in the present case there was no coverage for the claimants who had travelled in the vehicle in an unauthorized manner. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimants are the unauthorized passengers who travelled in the vehicle, but it has wrongly directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

3. The main contention of the counsel is that when there was no coverage to cover the present claimants, the question of making the payment and thereafter, to recover the amount does not arise. Further, he referred to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that only the passengers who travelled in the public vehicles and any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of the third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place only covered under the policy.

4. It was further submitted that any person referred to under Section 147 (b) (1) would mean that any third party including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative who travelled along with the goods in the vehicle. Any person referred therein would mean only the third parties and it would not cover the person who travelled in an unauthorized manner in the vehicle and in terms of Section 147(1) (b) (1), it would cover only the person who travelled as the owner along with his goods in the vehicle and all other persons who travelled will not be covered. Therefore, he would submit that in the present case having come to the conclusion that the claimants are unauthorized passengers, the Tribunal should not have ordered to pay and recovery, as there was no coverage to cover the risk of unauthorized passengers.

5. The counsel would further submit that only in case if there is any breach of the conditions of the policy, the pay and recovery is permissible. In case, if the particular risk is not covered, the question of pay and recovery does not arise. Therefore, he would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal to the extent directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and thereafter, recover from the owner is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the claimants are not unauthorized passengers. They have travelled only in the course of employment in the vehicle only as loadmen. In fact, the vehicle carried these claimants only as loadmen to harvest and load the sugarcane. This fact has been clearly dealt with by the Tribunal and it has come to the conclusion that the claimants have travelled not in the capacity as owner of the goods but as a coolie to harvest and load the sugarcane. Therefore, he would submit that the question of unauthorized passengers does not arise, they have travelled only as a loadmen which would very well cover under the policy of insurance available to the vehicle.

7. This Court heard the submission of the learned counsel on either side, and perused the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal. On perusal of the judgment and decree would show that the claimants have travelled as loadmen to harvest and load the sugarcane and the Tribunal has also recorded that the claimants have travelled not as a owner of the goods but as a coolie. The factum of reason of the coolie travelling in the vehicle also recorded by the Tribunal as for the purpose to harvest and to load the sugarcane. Therefore, it is clear that they h