A person transporting their own goods in a commercial vehicle is not a gratuitous passenger and remains a third party, ensuring the insurance company's liability for compensation in the event of an accident.

Prayer : This petition to set aside the decree and Judgment passed in MCOP No.2432 of 2014 on 12.10.2017 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Cuddalore.

J U D G M E N T

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the decree and judgement dated 12.10.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2432 of 2014 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased was engaged in the business as a seafood merchant and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. On 10.05.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent bearing Registration No.TN-51-M-6607 a mini-van, as the owner of the goods being transported therein, from north to south at Semmangkudi. The driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and without adhering to traffic regulations, as a result, the vehicle collided with a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-05-T-8680 and thereafter capsized, causing the accident. Due the accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures. Though she was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, she subsequently succumbed to the injuries. Consequently a criminal case was registered in the Crime No. 206 of 2014 against the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, in Sirkali Police Station alleging that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence of the aforesaid driver. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending mini-van and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, filed a Claims Petition in M.C.O.P.No.2432 of 2014 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, against respondents 1 and 2, seeking compensation to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent remained absent before the Tribunal and was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and prove whether he his legal heir of the deceased. The 2nd respondent further contended that the deceased was at best, an unauthorized passenger travelling in the vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. It was further averred that, at the time of the accident more than ten persons including the deceased, were travelling in the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent. Whereas as per the permit conditions, the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle was only two persons, thereby constituting a clear violation. The 2nd respondent also had denied that the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle held any valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The 2nd respondent also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and exorbitant. Accordingly on the above grounds the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Based on the pleadings on both the sides the learned Claims Tribunal had framed the following points for determination.

1. Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s vehicle driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation as alleged by them?

3. To what other reliefs, the petitioner is entitled to?

5. On the petitoner’s side the petitioner had examined himsel