JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in MCOP No.9 of 2012 dated 08.04.2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukottai., Wherein the respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,19,700/- towards compensation and directed the appellant/second respondent herein to deposit the amount with 7.5% interest along with costs from the date of petition till the realization of the amount. Aggrieved over the order of the Tribunal, the appellant/second respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the petition before the Tribunal are as follows:

On 10.04.2007, at about 7.00 a.m., the second petitioner along with his father Ramaiya and others were travelling in the van bearing Reg. No TN 45 Y 8294, at that time the driver of the van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree, thereby Ramaiya who travelled in the vehicle sustained blood injuries and he died in the hospital. The deceased was aged about 50 years and he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased, thereby they claim compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The brief facts of the counter filed by the second respondent are as follows:

The petition is not maintainable either in law or facts. The respondent denied the age , income, occupation of the deceased. The accident did not take place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent and the deceased himself travelled as gratuitous passenger and invited the accident. Since the vehicle is a goods vehicle and the deceased travelled as unauthorized passenger the appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners they have examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.8 and on the side of the respondent R.W.1 to R.W.4 were examined and exhibits R.1 to R4 were marked.

7. After hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,19,700/- and directed the appellant/second respondent to pay the amount and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle,i.e., fourth respondent/first respondent.

8. As against the order passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent/Insurance company has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the vehicle involved in the accident is goods vehicle and in that goods vehicle the deceased along with others travelled as gratuitous passenger and thereby there is violation of condition of policy and hence the appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. However the Tribunal without considering the above aspect awarded the amount directing the appellant/second respondent to pay the amount and then recover the same from the fourth respondent/first respondent, therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the fourth respondent/first respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant /second respondent. The seating capacity is 1+2. Though it is a goods vehicle the deceased alone died in the accident and the seating capacity is 1+2, thereby the appellant/second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. After considering all the aspects the Tribunal has awarded a just and fair compensation by directing the appellant/second respondent to pay the amount to the petitioners and