(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.99 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.100 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.106 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.)

Common Judgment

1. The unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred these appeals aggrieved over the common judgment passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.97 to 107 of 2009 vide award dated 10.06.2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tiruvannamalai, ordering pay and recovery .

2. According to the claimants, on 17.11.2008, as per the instructions of the second respondent/owner of the vehicle, the claimants who are the laborers traveled in a Bajaj Mini Door vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 25 F 0745 belonging to the second respondent from Polur to Eechangadu and while nearing Polur Mahindra Company, the second respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break, due to which, the vehicle capsized and the claimants sustained injuries all over the body.

3. The Insurance Company has filed counter statement and denied the allegations set out in the claim petitions and stated that the claimants have to prove that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident and also denied the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license and as per the Registration Certificate, the seating capacity including driver is two as well as Insurance policy premium was paid only for two persons including driver. At the time of accident, as per FIR, more than 15 persons traveled in the goods vehicle and therefore, the claimants are unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The second respondent purchased the offending vehicle from the third respondent on 12.09.2008, as per RC, but the second respondent has not transferred his name in the insurance policy within the statutory period. Therefore, the owner-cum-driver has violated the insurance policy conditions and did not obey the rules of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

4. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked.

5. Since all the claim petitions were arsing out of the same accident, the Tribunal conducted a joint trial in all these appeals and passed a common judgment.

6. On appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that P.W.1 to P.W.12 have categorically deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, the accident occurred, due to which, the claimants sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Ex.P1 is a copy of the FIR registered as against the second respondent/driver-cumowner of the vehicle. The final report has been laid against the second respondent which is marked as Ex.P3. The Tribunal opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. As per the Registration Certificate, the seating capacity including driver is two and Insurance policy premium was paid only for two persons including driver. As per the FIR, at the time of accident, more than 15 persons travelled in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the claimants are unauthorised passengers and only on the instructions of the owner of the vehicle/second respondent, the claimants travelled as unauthorized passengers and by applying the ratio laid down by the judgment of New India Insurance Company Ltd, Velore v. Thilaga and ors. reported in 2012 (7) MLJ 359, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company has preferred these appeals.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal having found that the claimants are gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle, went wrong in directing the appellant to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without any basis. The Tribunal has not followed the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Nagammal and others reported in 2009 ACJ 865, wherein, it has been clearly held that “such an order of pay and recovery is to be passed only in respect of violation of policy conditions and not in respect of passengers carried in goods vehicle, which risk is not covered under the policy or required under the Motor Vehicles Act”. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Amudhavalli and others vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2025 ACJ 2167, in which, it has been stated that there was a fundamental breach and the deceased being a person who travelled in the goods carriage after paying fare, the damages for his death was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. Yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited vs. Aandi and others reported in 2019 ACJ 1975 was relied upon to show that “no doubt true that in many cases the claimants may not be able to realize the award amount from the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. But, the said factual situation alone cannot impel us to do some thing against the provisions of the statute and the decisions of the larger Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”.

8. Despite the name of the counsel for the second respondent/owner of the vehicle printed in the causes lists, there is no representation for the second respondent. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the owner of the vehicle/second respondent has not preferred any appeal.

9. This court carefully considered the submissions made and perused the records available.

10. The grievance of the appellant/Insurance Company is that though the Tribunal held that the claimants were gratuitous passengers and travelled in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation and recover the same from the second respondent/owner of the vehicle. As per the Registration Certificate, the seating capacity including the driver in the offending vehicle is only two and the Insurance policy premium was paid only for two persons and at the time of accident, more than 15 persons traveled in the offending vehicle. Therefore, undoubtedly, the claimants are gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and hence, the owner of the vehicle/second respondent has to pay compensation to the claimants and the second respondent is the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Nagammal and others reported in 2009 ACJ 865 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

                     “(iii) Under Section 147 the Insurance Company is not statutorily required to cover the liability in respect of a passenger in a goods vehicle unless such passenger is the owner or agent of the owner of the goods accompanying such goods in the concerned goods vehicle.”

11. It is relevant to refer another judgment of this Court in the case of Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited vs. Aandi and others reported in 2019 ACJ 1975, wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the owner is liable to pay compensation to the gratuitous passengers and the liability against the Insurance Company was set aside. Yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Amudhavalli and others vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2025 ACJ 2167 is relied upon and the relevant paragraph No.10 is extracted hereunder:-

                     “10. This is a case in which there was a fundamental breach noticed and the deceased being a person who travelled in the goods carriage after paying fare, the damages for his death was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. There was no amount deposited or paid by the insurance company. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, especially, when it was passed before Satpal Singh’s case (supra) which stood overruled in Asha Rani (supra). Shamanna (supra) was a case in which the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident in which the pay and recover direction was issued, relying on the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1(SC).”

12. In view of the aforesaid judgments, despite the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the claimants are gratuitous passengers, who traveled in a goods vehicle, the direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, is without any basis. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover the same from the second respondent/owner of the vehicle is set aside.

13. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the award dated 10.06.2013 in M.C.O.P.Nos.97 to 107 of 2009 is set aside with regard to pay and recovery alone. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle is directed to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to withdraw the amount, if any deposited by them, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.