Insurer liable to pay and recover compensation for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles despite policy breaches.

JUDGMENT :

THILAKAVADI, J.

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the Appellant / Insurance Company Common Award dated 13.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P. Nos.8224 of 2013 and 597 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge No.1, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same Award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition.

4. Shortly stated , on 16.06.2013, at about 16.00 hours, when Stella Mery (petitioner in MCOP No.8224/2013) and J. Reeta Mery (Petitioner in MCOP No.597/2014) were travelling in a Van bearing Registration No.TN-31- AH-4711 along with cooking materials and fire wood, in Thamaraikulam at Panruti-Kumbakonam National Highway, the van capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, as a result of which the petitioners sustained grievous injuries.

5. The petitioners filed MCOP No.8224/2013 and MCOP No.597/2014 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively for the injuries sustained by them in the said accident.

6. The claim was resisted by the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company stating that the petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle as passengers at the time of accident and that the driver of the van had only a Light Motor vehicle and Motor Cycle with Gear license and was not authorised to drive transport vehicle. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

7. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the van, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,39,950/- to the petitioner in MCOP No.8224/2013 and a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the petitioner in MCOP No.597/2014, and directed the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company to pay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization at the first instance and then recover the same from the 1^st respondent / owner of the offending vehicle, since the 1^st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

8. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation with a liberty to recover the same from the 1^st respondent / owner of the vehicle since there was breach of policy conditions by allowing the petitioners to travel in a Goods Vehicle and by allowing a person, who had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle. He would further submit that the Tribunal erred in accepting Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 Disability certificate and awarding Rs.9,07,200/- towards pecuniary loss to the petitioner in MCOP No.8224/2013 and Rs.1,50,000/- towards disability to the petitioner in MCOP No.597 of 2014 and that exorbitant amounts were awarded under the other heads. Hence, prayed for setting aside the common award passed by the Tribunal.

10. Per contra, Mr.P. Chinnaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/petitioner would contend that, the Tribunal has rightly ordered for ‘pay and recover’, which warrants any interference.

11. Heard the submissions of the counsel appearing on either side.

12. The short question arising for decision making in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compens