Judgment : 1. Questioning the finding rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, in and by an award dated 23.12.2010 made in O.P.No.271 of 2008, in fixing the liability on their part in paying the compensation amount to the claimants and then, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are claimants before the Tribunal. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Kittusamy and the second respondent is his son. 3. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal, that on 12.2.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., while the deceased Kittusamy was travelling in a minidor auto bearing registration No.TN-49-M-9992 as a load man, accompanying the goods, the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, as a result of which, the vehicle capsized and was thus, involved in the accident. In the said accident, the deceased Kittusamy sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Nallathambi Hospital, Palladam and later to PSG Hospital, Coimbatore and from there again, he was taken to Government Hospital, Coimbatore, but he died on the way to the hospital. Hence, his wife and son made a claim as against the owner of the vehicle as well as the appellant insurance company, claiming a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation. 4. But, the case of the claimants was resisted by the insurance company by taking a defence that since the deceased had travelled in the goods carrying vehicle only as a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Further, in the First Information Report itself, it has been stated that six persons had travelled in the said goods carrying vehicle. The Registration Certificate of the said vehicle permits only carrying two persons. Therefore, there is clear violation of policy conditions as well as the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. In order to prove the claim, the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining one Mayilsamy, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, as P.W.2, and marked 4 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. In order to prove the claim, the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining one Mayilsamy, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, as P.W.2, and marked 4 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4. On the side of the insurance company, one Ashokan, who was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, was examined as R.W.1 and one Krishnasamy, who was working as Senior Assistant in the insurance company, was examined as R.W.2 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.6. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has made calculation under different heads and awarded a sum of Rs.5,79,200/- as compensation and since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount and permitted them to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved over the said finding, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company. 7. Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company that the vehicle involved in the accident is a monidor auto and it is a goods carrying vehicle. As per the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle, only two persons have been permitted to travel in the vehicle. But, at the time of accident, six persons had travelled in the said vehicle, which is evident from the First Information Report. Therefore, there is clear violation of the policy conditions and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Since there is a statutory violation, the question of paying the compensation amount and recovering the same from the owner of the vehicle will not apply. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased had travelled in the minidor auto along with a bureau. Therefore, he had travelled only as a person accompanying the goods and hence, he cannot be termed as an unauthorised or gratuitous passengers. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased had travelled in the minidor auto along with a bureau. Therefore, he had travelled only as a person accompanying the goods and hence, he cannot be termed as an unauthorised or gratuitous passengers. Since the deceased had travelled in the vehicle accompanying the goods, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the award passed by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 587 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Ibrahim. In the said case, the deceased persons were travelling in a Tempo Vehicle as owners of goods. Therefore, this Court directed the insurance company in that case to pay the compensation amount. For the similar preposition, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.Ammasai and others passed in C.M.A.No.1708 of 2013. 9. By way of reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that even according to the claimants, the deceased had travelled in the minidor auto only accompanying the goods viz., the bureau, belonging to one Kuppachi. Only if a person travels as an employee of the owner of the vehicle, he is entitled for compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was not an employee of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 10. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. 11. It is a admitted case that the accident had occurred when the deceased was travelling in a minidor auto bearing registration No.TN-49-M-9992. But, according to the appellant insurance company, since the vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle, the deceased is not permitted to travel in the said vehicle. Hence, it is clear that the deceased had travelled in the said vehicle only as an unauthorised passenger and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. But, according to the claimants, on the date of accident, the deceased had travelled in the vehicle only accompanying the goods. Hence, it is clear that the deceased had travelled in the said vehicle only as an unauthorised passenger and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. But, according to the claimants, on the date of accident, the deceased had travelled in the vehicle only accompanying the goods. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants by inviting the attention of this Court to the First Information Report, submitted that the contention of the First Information Report would show that the deceased and others were taking a bureau in the minidor auto to deliver the same to one Kuppachi. Therefore, it has to be construed that the deceased had travelled only as a passenger accompanying the goods. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and after paying the amount, the insurance company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the award passed by the Tribunal. But, a perusal of the first Information Report would show that the deceased had travelled in the minidor auto by taking a bureau belonging to one Kuppachi. Therefore, it is clear that he had not travelled as an employee of the owner of the vehicle. As contended by the learned appearing for the appellant insurance company, only if a person travels as an employee of the owner of the vehicle by carrying the goods, he is entitled for compensation, in the event of sustaining injuries, if the said vehicle meets with an accident. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 15 (SC) - Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. The relevant passage from the said judgment is as follows:- "24. It is worthy to note that sub-clause (i) (c) refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the Statutory Policy. Ltd. and another. The relevant passage from the said judgment is as follows:- "24. It is worthy to note that sub-clause (i) (c) refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the Statutory Policy. On an apposite reading of Sections 146 & 167 the intendment of the Legislature, as it appears to us, is to cover the injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. It is apt to state here that the Proviso commences in a different way. A policy is not required to cover the liability of the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act and that too in respect of an employee carried in a vehicle. To put it differently, it does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid that the Statutory Policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the Statutory Policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language employed in the Statute. Therefore, we conclude that the Insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured." A reading of the said judgment would show that a policy covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. Only if a person travels as an employee of the owner of the vehicle accompanying the goods or either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage, then only he can be construed as a person who travelled accompanying the goods. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, it has to be construed that the deceased had travelled in the vehicle only as an unauthorised person. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, it has to be construed that the deceased had travelled in the vehicle only as an unauthorised person. Even according to the case of the claimants, the deceased had travelled by carrying a bureau belonging to one Kuppachi in the vehicle owned by the fourth respondent. The deceased was not an employee either employed or engaged by the fourth respondent, the owner of the goods carriage to carry the goods. There is also no evidence that he had travelled in the minidor auto as an authorised representative of the owner of the goods. Moreover, six persons had travelled in the minidor auto, though the registration certificate of the said vehicle permits only carrying on two persons. Therefore, there is a clear statutory violation and hence, the deceased cannot be said to be as a person accompanying the goods and he will not come within the purview of sub-clause(i)(c) of Section 147. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, the appellant insurance company is hereby exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation amount. 12. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. This Court, by an order dated 29.11.2012, directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate accrued interest and costs and by order dated 3.7.2014, permitted the claimants to withdraw 50% of the said amount. In view of the same, the appellant insurance company is permitted to withdraw the balance 50% of the amount deposited by them. With regard to the another 50% of the amount that has been withdrawn by the claimants, the appellant insurance company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. As far as the balance compensation amount is concerned, the claimants are at liberty to work out their remedy to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.