JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamapuri, in M.C.OP. No.613/2014 in and by which the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Assailing the said order, by contending that the any person travelling in a private vehicle would not be covered under an Act Only Policy, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as claimant, insurance company and the owner of the vehicle will be referred to as the 2^nd respondent, as arrayed in the present appeal.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under :-

On 21.8.2014, at about 4.45 a.m., when the claimant was travelling in the car belonging to the 2^nd respondent, which was driven by one Tamilarasu in Morappur – Dharmapuri main road in a rash and negligent manner, near Solaikottai the car dashed against a Tamarind tree in which the claimant suffered grievous injuries including fracture to the left leg and right leg and the Femur bone and Tibia were fractured. Therefore, the claim petition was preferred before the Tribunal seeking compensation to be paid jointly and severally by the insurance company and the 2^nd respondent.

4. The main ground canvassed by the insurance company before the Tribunal to extricate itself from the liability to pay the compensation is that the policy taken by the 2^nd respondent was a liability only policy, which runs for the period 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015 and that the 2^nd respondent, who is the owner of the car had not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the passengers/occupants travelling in the car and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation at the hands of the insurance company, as the insurance company is not vicariously liable to indemnify the insured under an Act Only Policy with regard to the occupants who are inside the vehicle as such of those persons, who are travelling in the vehicle would not be covered under the Act Only Policy in the absence of additional premium being paid.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10. On the side of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and the copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R-1. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that any person beyond the insurer and the insured would fall within the ambit of “authorised representative” as the claimant was employed by the owner of the private vehicle, viz., the 2^nd respondent and, therefore, would be entitled to compensation at the hands of the insurance company, which is to indemnify the claimant, but could recover the same from the 2^nd respondent, viz., the owner of the vehicle, for the reasons stated in the impugned order.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the Act Only Policy did not cover liability of passengers in a private vehicle as it is not a statutory compulsion u/s 147 of the Act, no liability can be fastened on the appellant to indemnify the claimant. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that when there is additional premium paid by the owner for the vehicle for coverage of the passenger in a private car, the passenger cannot be brought within the ambit of “third party”, and the direction of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation and, thereafter, to recover the same from the 2^nd respondent is wholly misconceived. Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the finding that the claimant was employed under the 2^nd respondent is wholly erroneous as is evident from the averments made by the claimant and even otherwise, the authorised representative of the owner in the private vehicle is distinguishable from third party as provided