JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant is the insurance company. The 1st respondent filed MCOP.No.1137 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District & Sessions Judge), Tirunelveli, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident, while he traveled as owner of the goods in a Load Auto that was insured with the appellant company. The accident took place on 28.01.2011. The claimant suffered injuries and he suffered 30% disability. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/claimant got examined himself as PW1. He also examined the Doctor who gave the disability certificate as PW2. Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on his side. On the side of the appellant, an official of the Regional Transport Office was examined as RW1 and an official of the appellant insurance company was examined as RW2. 3. The 1st respondent claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.55,000/- as compensation with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition by way of judgment and decree dated 11.07.2012 in MCOP.No.1137 of 2011. 4. The appellant insurance company has filed this appeal questioning the liability as well as the rate of interest that was awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant has not questioned the quantum. 5. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent traveled in the back side of the Load Auto and therefore, he was a gratuitous passenger and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per Ex.P1-FIR that was given immediately after the accident, it is stated that the 1st respondent traveled in the Load Auto which carried the cotton and the same was unloaded in the market and thereafter, it was returning from Kadambur to Kothali. While the auto was returning after unloading the cotton, the accident took place. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant has submitted that besides the statement made in the FIR that the claimant accompanied with cotton goods and unloaded the same in the market and while returning back to Kothali, the accident took place, the claimant also gave evidence that the accident took place at the time of returning back of the vehicle after unloading of the goods. 7. He took me through the evidence of the claimant before the Tribunal. 7. He took me through the evidence of the claimant before the Tribunal. Hence, he has submitted that the claimant could not be classified as gratuitous passenger. Even if there was any violation of policy conditions by carrying more persons in the Auto, the insurance company could pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the auto and the Tribunal also directed the insurance company to pay the amount and to recover it from the owner. According to him, even pay and recovery could not have been ordered, since the claimant traveled as the owner of the goods and the accident took place while he was returning back to Kothali after unloading the goods. 8. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that usual rate of interest that is awarded in all the cases is only 7.5%, but in this case, it is unusually fixed at 8%. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant has no serious objection to modify the same to 7.5%. 9. I have considered the submission made on either side. 10. The relevant portion of FIR dated 22.08.2011 on the file of Kadambur Police Station is extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 11. The aforesaid statement was not seriously disputed by the appellant. In fact, nothing was suggested when the 1st respondent was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal by putting to him about the contents of the FIR. During the cross examination of PW1 by the appellant insurance company, the 1st respondent/claimant has reiterated his version that he traveled in the Load Auto after unloading his goods in the market and the accident took place at the time of returning back to Kothali. In this regard, the following passage from the cross examination of the 1st respondent/claimant is extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 12. Therefore, the 1st respondent could not be simply termed as gratuitous passenger. He was the person whose goods were taken in the Load Auto. The same is not disputed by the appellant insurance company. The only objection made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 1st respondent/claimant should not have traveled by sitting in the back side of the Load Auto. It is beyond the capacity of the load auto. The same is not disputed by the appellant insurance company. The only objection made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 1st respondent/claimant should not have traveled by sitting in the back side of the Load Auto. It is beyond the capacity of the load auto. According to him, besides the driver, only one person could travel, but in this case, the father-in-law of the claimant was traveling along with the driver in the front portion of the vehicle. The claimant and his brother-in-law traveled in the backside. According to him, while carrying the goods, the owner or the load man could travel along with the goods at the backside of the vehicle, but the owner of vehicle could not travel at the backside of the vehicle while returning to the original place after unloading the goods. I do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. If one could travel at the backside of the vehicle while carrying goods, there is nothing wrong in traveling at the backside of the vehicle after unloading of the goods. In fact, there would be less risk and less inconvenience, only when the person travels in the backside after unloading the goods. But, the learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the goods of these persons were carried in the Load Auto and those goods were unloaded in the market and they were returning back to Kothali. If it is so, the concerned persons could not be termed as gratuitous passengers. However, one person alone could travel as owner or load man. In this case, three persons traveled and hence, the Tribunal ordered pay and recovery. All the three persons are owners and also unloaded the cotton goods in the market. Taking into account the said fact, the Tribunal while ordering compensation, permitted the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 13. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal particularly, in view of the aforesaid fact. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has heavily relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. P.Ayyakannu, reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 89 (DB) more particularly, paragraph 7 of the judgment. 14. I have perused the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has heavily relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. P.Ayyakannu, reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 89 (DB) more particularly, paragraph 7 of the judgment. 14. I have perused the aforesaid judgment. In that case, it was claimed that the claimants traveled as owners of the goods, but the Division Bench did not agree with the contention of the claimants. The Division Bench has categorically recorded a finding that it is difficult to believe the case of the claimants that they were traveling as owners of the goods since according to them, they are only seasonal agricultural worker and construction worker. Paragraph 7 of the judgment is extracted in this regard:- "7. Now we will evaluate the documentary evidence. In the detailed descriptions of the R.C. Book reads as follows:- "13. Seating capacity (including driver) 2 in all." The vehicle is a Load Auto as seen from Ex.R4 series. The Motor vehicle cover note shows that there is no coverage for any passenger but only for goods weighing up to 1350 kgs and it also shows that the sitting capacity including the driver is two in all. Therefore, it is clear that the passengers who were traveling at the time of accident exceeded the sitting capacity. Even according to the Claim Petition, the insured were seasonal, agricultural worker and building constructional worker. Their case that they were accompanying the goods which were carried in the insured vehicle cannot be true. In the Claim Petition they have stated that they were carrying their vegetables, which belongs to them which grow in their lands. It is difficult to believe their case that they were traveling as owner of goods since according to them they are only seasonal, agricultural worker and constructional worker. Ex.R2 is the Proposal Form for getting the Insurance Policy for the vehicle concerned and the purpose has been shown as a goods carrying vehicle." 15. But in this case, as stated above, even the appellant has not disputed that the claimant along with his father-in-law and brother-in-law carried the goods namely, cotton to the market and the same was unloaded and they were returning back. Hence, the aforesaid judgment cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 16. But in this case, as stated above, even the appellant has not disputed that the claimant along with his father-in-law and brother-in-law carried the goods namely, cotton to the market and the same was unloaded and they were returning back. Hence, the aforesaid judgment cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 16. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is modified from 8% to 7.5%. Except the above modification, the award of the Tribunal in all other respects stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with proportionate interest and costs lying in the credit of the claim petition by making necessary application before the Tribunal. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed.