JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 03.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram.) Common Judgment: 1. The issues involved in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed, challenging the orders and decrees passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram and II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram in the following M.C.O.Ps: M.C.O.P. Nos. Dated C.M.A.Nos. M.C.O.P.No.71/2014 03.09.2018 C.M.A.No.2631/2019 M.C.O.P.No.173/2013 03.09.2018 C.M.A.No.2629/2019 M.C.O.P.No.86/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1279/2020 M.C.O.P.No.94/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1280/2020 M.C.O.P.No.97/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1281/2020 M.C.O.P.No.88/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1282/2020 M.C.O.P.No.93/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1283/2020 M.C.O.P.No.87/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1284/2020 M.C.O.P.No.91/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1285/2020 M.C.O.P.No.92/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1286/2020 M.C.O.P.No.85/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1287/2020 M.C.O.P.No.83/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1288/2020 M.C.O.P.No.89/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1289/2020 3. In all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the appeals are filed, questioning the liability of the Insurance company to pay compensation. 4. The accident occurred on 05.01.2013 at about 01.00 p.m. near Veeraanam Lake, Kattumannarkoil Main Road. Orathur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.03/2013 and 28 persons travelled in the Goods Vehicle, sustained injuries and one person died. The Claim Petitions are filed. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues. The Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the Driver of the Goods Vehicle namely TATA ACE Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-BB-9788, came in a rash and negligent manner, got capsized and therefore, the Driver of the TATA ACE Van is responsible for the cause of the accident. The people, who were travelling in the Goods Vehicle/TATA ACE Van, sustained grievous injuries and one person died and the Tribunal awarded compensation and further, directed the appellant/Insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability in entirety was fixed on the owner of the vehicle and it was established before the Tribunal that the Driver of the TATA ACE Van had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle got capsized and the accident occurred. There is no dispute with reference to the factum regarding the accident. The witnesses also categorically deposed that 28 persons were travelled in the TATA ACE Van and they were proceeding to attend condolence. These facts are admitted by the witnesses themselves. There is no dispute with reference to the factum regarding the accident. The witnesses also categorically deposed that 28 persons were travelled in the TATA ACE Van and they were proceeding to attend condolence. These facts are admitted by the witnesses themselves. However, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the appellant/Insurance company has to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance company reiterated that awards of the Tribunal are perverse and in violation of the statutory provisions. Question of Pay and Recovery would not arise in the present cases as there is a statutory violation. It is not the case as if, the Policy conditions are violated. In view of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the goods carrier cannot be utilized for passengers. It is further contended that even under the Insurance policy, there is no coverage for the passengers in the goods carrier. Only two persons are covered under the Insurance policy and other passengers are not covered under the policy. Therefore, it is not only a violation of statutory provisions, but also there is no Policy Coverage. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in ordering Pay and Recovery. Once, the owner of the vehicle is held liable, then the owner alone must be directed to pay the compensation and the Insurance company cannot be held liable. 6. It is contended that there was a willful violation of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle as well as by the driver. In fact, the Goods Vehicle was hired as contract carriage in order to attend the condolence. Thus, the very engagement of the vehicle itself is in violation of the statutory provision as passengers cannot travel in a Goods Vehicle. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company states that the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in many judgments, held that the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation in case of statutory violation. Only in case of violation of certain Policy conditions, the rule of Pay and Recovery can be granted and in all other cases, where the provisions of the Act is violated, then the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 8. Only in case of violation of certain Policy conditions, the rule of Pay and Recovery can be granted and in all other cases, where the provisions of the Act is violated, then the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimants opposed the contentions by stating that the claimants, who all are poor Coolies, were not aware of the consequences. It is the owner of the vehicle as well as the driver committed the mistake and for the said mistake, the claimants cannot be penalized. Admittedly, 28 persons travelled in the TATA ACE Van and the vehicle got capsized on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its Driver. However, the Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and ordered Pay and Recovery. The owner of the vehicle was held liable to pay compensation and by ordering Pay and Recovery, the Insurance company shall pay the compensation and recover the entire compensation from the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the Insurance company is not going to be affected and under these circumstances, in order to compensate the accident victims, the Insurance company must be directed to pay the compensation without any further delay. It is contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error and even in case of violation of conditions, Courts have ordered Pay and Recovery and the same principle is to be adopted in the present case also. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants prayed for the dismissal of all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 9. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 05.01.2013. The fact established before the Tribunal are that 28 passengers were travelled in TATA ACE Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-BB-9788. Further, before the Tribunal, it was established that the Driver of the Goods Vehicle had driven the Van in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle got capsized and the passengers sustained grievous injuries and one person died. These facts are established before the Tribunal. In order to appreciate the evidences in this regard, it is relevant to extract the following findings of the Tribunal, which provides clarity in order to fix the liability: “TAMIL” 10. Reading of the evidences placed before the Tribunal, it is unambiguous that only two persons are covered under the Insurance Policy. These facts are established before the Tribunal. In order to appreciate the evidences in this regard, it is relevant to extract the following findings of the Tribunal, which provides clarity in order to fix the liability: “TAMIL” 10. Reading of the evidences placed before the Tribunal, it is unambiguous that only two persons are covered under the Insurance Policy. One is the Driver, another person is the representative of the Goods in the Vehicle. There is no other coverage for any other person in the Goods Vehicle. Thus, all the 28 persons travelled in the goods carrier are gratuitous passengers. They had illegally contracted to travel in the Goods Vehicle in order to attend condolence and due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the vehicle got capsized and accident occurred. 11. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that the passengers, who were permitted to travel in the goods carrier by way of a contract cannot be fit in with the Insurance Policy. There is no coverage of Policy as far as the gratuitous passengers are concerned. This apart, there is a statutory violation in allowing the passengers to travel in a goods carrier. Section 127 of the Motor Vehicles Act is clear that the passengers cannot travel in a Goods Vehicle. Those persons are unauthorized passengers and therefore, the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation in respect of all those unauthorized passengers. 12. The Courts must be cautious, while fixing liability. The Insurance Policy is a contract and the terms and conditions stipulated in the Policy are binding on the parties to the contract. The passengers may be a third party to the Insurance policy. However, such third parties are not covered under the Insurance policies. Only in the event of coverage of third party in an Insurance policy, then alone, the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation and not otherwise. In the event of no policy, the Tribunal cannot presume that all the persons, who are travelling illegally in the goods carrier should be considered as a third party. Such a presumption is impermissible in law. Inference cannot be drawn in the matter of fixing liability and in awarding compensation. Factual inferences can be drawn if there is a policy coverage and there is no violation of statutory provision. Such a presumption is impermissible in law. Inference cannot be drawn in the matter of fixing liability and in awarding compensation. Factual inferences can be drawn if there is a policy coverage and there is no violation of statutory provision. Thus, all the persons travelling in a goods carrier in an illegal manner cannot be treated as third parties. Insurance Policy contract is between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. However, there must be a third party coverage under the policy and if there is no such coverage, then the Insurance company cannot be held liable. 13. In the present case, the Driver is covered under the policy and the authorized representative of the goods being carried in the Goods Vehicle is also covered. No other person is covered under the policy in question and there is no dispute in this regard. 14. As far as the present appeals are concerned, all the 28 persons are gratuitous passengers. Even as per the deposition of the witnesses, it is admitted that 28 persons were travelled in the Goods Vehicle in order to attend condolence. This being the undisputed factum established before the Tribunal and with reference to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, there is no coverage for these gratuitous passengers, the Tribunal has committed an error in ordering Pay and Recovery. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Thus, owner of the vehicle alone has to pay compensation to the accident victims. Contrarily, the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation as there is no contract as well as there is no statutory liability. 15. Under these circumstances, the common judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is in violation of the established principles and the Pay and Recovery ordered by the Tribunal is impermissible, in view of the fact that the respondents/claimants are unauthorized passengers in a Goods Vehicle and there is a statutory violation and the Insurance company cannot be held statutorily liable to pay compensation to those gratuitous passengers. 16. Accordingly, orders and decrees passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram and II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram in the following M.C.O.Ps are set aside: M.C.O.P. Nos. Dated C.M.A.Nos. 16. Accordingly, orders and decrees passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram and II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram in the following M.C.O.Ps are set aside: M.C.O.P. Nos. Dated C.M.A.Nos. M.C.O.P.No.71/2014 03.09.2018 C.M.A.No.2631/2019 M.C.O.P.No.173/2013 03.09.2018 C.M.A.No.2629/2019 M.C.O.P.No.86/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1279/2020 M.C.O.P.No.94/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1280/2020 M.C.O.P.No.97/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1281/2020 M.C.O.P.No.88/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1282/2020 M.C.O.P.No.93/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1283/2020 M.C.O.P.No.87/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1284/2020 M.C.O.P.No.91/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1285/2020 M.C.O.P.No.92/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1286/2020 M.C.O.P.No.85/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1287/2020 M.C.O.P.No.83/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1288/2020 M.C.O.P.No.89/2018 01.10.2019 C.M.A.No.1289/2020 17. The respondents/claimants are entitled to get the compensation from the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the entire award amount granted by the Tribunal with accrued interest within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the respondent/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective portion of the compensation by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. As far as the appellant/Insurance company is concerned, they are permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and the payments are to be made through RTGS. 18. Consequently, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.