Insurance companies are not liable to indemnify for claims involving passengers if the vehicle was not authorized for passenger transport.

1. Challenge in respect of the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company is made in this Appeal to the award of Rs.3,08,000/-, dated 21/12/2005 and made in M.C.O.P. No. 877 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge)(FTC), Pudukottai.

2. The facts which giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:
That on 22/05/2002 at about 2.45 p.m., the tractor bearing registration No. TN - 55 - D - 3764 belonging to the 6th Respondent herein was proceeding towards Ammapatinam on Sethu Road. When it was nearing Raghumath Nagar, the deceased Subburamu @ Subburaman had alighted from the tractor and was standing in front of SYN building. While so, the driver, who was on the steering wheel had suddenly moved the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased Subburamu @ Subburaman, which resulted his instantaneously death on the spot. The deceased was working in AKS farm as agricultural coolie. On account of his death, the Claimants who are the wife, children, mother and the brother of the deceased had filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P. No. 877 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (FTC), Pudukottai, claiming a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards the compensation.

3. The owner of the vehicle, who is the First Respondent, in the Claim Petition had not chosen to contest the claim as he remained ex - parte.

4. On the other hand, the Appellant Insurance Company being the 2nd Respondent, had alone contested the Claim Petition on the ground that since the deceased was travelling in the tractor bearing registration No. TN - 55 - D - 3764 and he himself had invited the accident, while he was alighting from the moving vehicle, the Insurance Company not at all liable to pay the compensation.

5. Including the first Claimant, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Claimants and during the course of their examination, five documents were marked. On the other hand, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Appellant - Insurance Company.

6. On appreciation of the materials available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had rejected the contention of the Appellant Insurance Company and proceeded to pass an award of Rs.3,08,000/- directing the Appellant - Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle to pay this amount to the Claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the award, after questioning the liability, the Insurance Company stands before this Court with this Appeal.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Mr. J.S. Murali, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Insurance Company, has adverted to that:
(1) The sitting capacity of the Tractor is only one and the Tractor bearing registration No. TN - 55 - D - 3764 and the Trailer bearing registration No. TN - 55 - D - 3765 were covered with Kissan Packages Policy at the time of occurrence and that the passengers are not permitted to travel either in the Tractor or in the Trailer. Since the deceased was travelling in the Tractor sitting on the mud - guard, when the occurrence was taken place, the Appellant - Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants.
(2) He has also contended that since the driver of the Tractor had committed wrong, the owner of the vehicle, who is the 6th Respondent and the Appellant is jointly liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants for the wrong committed by the driver of the Tractor, but the Insurance Company cannot be directed to indemnify the