An Act Policy does not cover gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, and the liability for compensation rests with the vehicle owner, not the insurance company.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Challenging the liability fixed on the appellant, the insurance company has filed the batch of appeals seeking to quash the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2013 made in M.C.P.O.No.278 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Chidambaram.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 29.03.2011 at about 1.15 pm, the claimants and deceased were travelling in the TATA Ace Mini Van bearing Registration No.TN 31 CY 2260 from Cholatharam to Vakkur Village as gratuitous passengers, due to rash and negligent driving of the van, the said van was capsized, for which, one Manivel lost his life and other 13 persons sustained injuries. Thereafter, the dependent of the deceased and other injured persons filed separate claim petitions claiming compensation. After adjudication, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that all the passengers are travelled in a van, which was owned by the second respondent, as gratuitous passengers and also the driver of the van has not possessed valid driving license and therefore, the Tribunal has fixed compensation in favour of the claimants payable by the appellant insurance company by ordering pay and recovery method. Challenging the said findings, the appellant Insurance company has come forward with these appeal.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying pay and recovery method against the appellant inspite of the fact that the claimants are not third parties, they were travelled as unauthorized passengers in the commercial vehicle and there is a policy violation.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance company further submitted that the driver has no driving license at the time of the accident and due to rash and negligence of the driving of the driver of the van, the accident had happened, due to which, the claimants sustained injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The second respondent, who is the owner, is having an Act policy and as such, there is no coverage for the occupants/injured persons of the van. Without considering the said fact, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in favour of the claimants, which is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that though the claimants and the deceased are unauthorized passengers and they were travelled as occupants of the van and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal ought to have treated the claimants as unauthorized passengers and has to rejected the claim petitions. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unsustainable to the facts and circumstances of the case because there was no coverage in the policy for the occupants.

In this context, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs.S.Krishnasamy reported in 2015 (1) TNMAC 19 (DB).

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in CMA.No.1013 of 2020 contended that even though, the second respondent is having Act policy, the Tribunal, after analyzing the materials available on record and also the ruling cited on either side, has rightly awarded the quantum of compensation and hence, there is no need to interference with the same and therefore, appeal has to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in CMA.No.1013 of 2020 and perused the materials available on record. Though notice has been served on the other respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 respondents.