JUDGMENT : C. SARAVANAN, J. 1. By this common order, all the four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of. 2. Both the claimants and Insurance Company are the appellants and the respondents in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Therefore, in this Judgment, they shall be referred by the respective ranks before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 3. In these appeals, the correctness of the impugned judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 and M.C.O.P. No 330 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are being put to test. 4. Details of respective appeals are as under:- S. No. C.M.A. No. Impugned order in M.C.O.P. No. Appellant Respondent Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Enhancement Sought for in the Appeals Rs. 1 2693/2018 330/2016 (Fatal Accident) The Manager, HDFC ERGO 4 Claimants, the legal representatives/ dependents of the deceased Abdul Azees and the owner of the insured vehicle. 10,37,500/- together with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs. -- 2 3859/2019 330/2016 (Fatal Accident) 4 Claimants the legal representative/ dependents of the deceased Abdul Azees The Manager, HDFC ERGO and the owner of the insured vehicle. -do- 9,62,500/- 3 3858/2019 328/2016 (Injury) Adhil @ Shek Adhil The Manager, HDFC ERGO and the insured owner 9,53,400/- 46,600/- 4 331/2019 328/2016 (Injury) The Manager, HDFC ERGO Adhil @ Shek Adhil -do- -- 5. Late Abdul Azees died due to the injuries in the accident. His son claimant Adhil @ Shek Adhil (the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016) suffered injuries. The legal heirs of Late Abdul Azees which included Adhil @ Shek Adhil (the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016) thus filed M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 2016 and claimed compensation for loss of dependency. 6. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 2016 filed C.M.A. No. 3859 of 2019 for enhancement of the compensation. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it was submitted that the insured vehicle had a seating capacity of 1+1 only, whereas, in the insured vehicle, not only Late Abdul Azees but also his son Adhil @ Shek Adhil the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 travelled along with one Ramaiyan the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 170 of 2016 and others above and above the seating capacity. 7. 7. It is the case of the Insurance Company that both the deceased Abdul Azees and the claimant Adhil @ Shek Adhil, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 travelled in the insured goods carriage as gratuitous passengers and therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 2016 and M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 who are the appellants in C.M.A. Nos. 3858 and 3859 of 2019. 8. It is further submitted that the compensation was awarded to the said Ramaiyan in M.C.O.P. No. 170 of 2016 as the owner of the goods. It is further submitted that the claimant Adhil @ Shek Adhil and his father late Abdul Azees did not travel in the insured vehicle as load men or coolie. It is further submitted that the no additional premium was paid for carrying persons beyond the seating capacity of 1+1 persons and therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 2016. 9. On the other hand, the dependents of late Abdul Azees including Adhil @ Shek Adhil, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 have prayed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the extent of injuries suffered by latter and that the Tribunal failed to note that the late Abdul Azeez was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as a coolie/load man for the owner of the insured Bolero Pickup Van. 10. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and therefore breach of contract of insurance. 11. I have perused the evidence on record. I have also perused the impugned Judgment and Decree passed the respective M.C.O.P’s. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 12. 11. I have perused the evidence on record. I have also perused the impugned Judgment and Decree passed the respective M.C.O.P’s. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 12. Exhibit P1 FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station on 19.12.2012 for the accident which took place on 18.12.2012 at about 04.30 p.m. It states that the said Adhil @ Shek Adhil/claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 and his father late Abdul Azees had hired the insured vehicle of the Manikandan in connection with their business of sale of red sand and the driver of the insured vehicle had stated that they have had to drop and pick up by Ramaiyan. 13. Apart from the owner of the vehicle, deceased Abdul Azees and Adhil @ Shek Adhil, one Gandhi, Ramaiyan and Shabudeen had travelled in the insured vehicle. Thus, the number of passengers travelled in the insured vehicle beyond the seating capacity of the insured vehicle. 14. Insurance Policy indicates that insured vehicle has licensed to carry only two persons. It is contention of the claimants that the Adhil @ Shek Adhil/claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 and his father late Abdul Azees had travelled as coolie engaged by the owner of the vehicle and therefore, even if no premium was paid, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation in terms of proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 15. This Court in Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Aandi and Others, dated 24.10.2018 in C.M.A. Nos. 1529 to 1533 of 2015 held as under:- 49. We find that the judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and Another referred to supra in support of its conclusion that the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same even in respect of a gratuitous passenger or an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle, do not support the said conclusion. 50. In fact, we find that in none of the judgments referred to viz. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swarn Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 , Rani and Others vs. National Insurance Co. 50. In fact, we find that in none of the judgments referred to viz. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swarn Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 , Rani and Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2018 (9) Scale 310 and Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 , the question regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in respect of an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle did arise for consideration. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the judgment of the two Judge bench in Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and another referred to supra cannot be taken as a precedent to conclude that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation even in respect of an unauthorized passenger, in a goods vehicle, in the light of categorical pronouncement of larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Asha Rani and Others and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and Others referred to supra. We therefore conclude that the Tribunal, in the case on hand, was not right in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and giving it the liberty to recover the same from the owner. 51. No doubt true that in many cases the claimants may not be able to realise the award amount from the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. But, the said factual situation alone cannot impel us to do something against the provisions of the statute and the decisions of the larger benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 52. In fine, all the appeals will stand allowed only in respect of the question of liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation is affirmed and there will be an award only against the owner of the vehicle viz. 1st respondent in all the Original Petitions and the award against the Insurance Company will stand set aside. However, in view of the fact that the claimants are not before us. We do not impose any costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 53. Once again, we place on record our sincere appreciation and gratitude to Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan who at our request assisted us in deciding the above appeals. However, in view of the fact that the claimants are not before us. We do not impose any costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 53. Once again, we place on record our sincere appreciation and gratitude to Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan who at our request assisted us in deciding the above appeals. 16. From a reading of Exhibit P1 FIR filed on behalf of the claimants, it is clear that there was no truth in the FIR. The deceased, Adhil @ Adhil Shek and others have not travelled as coolies/load men in the insured vehicle. The said Adhil @ Adhil Shek was a student pursuing third year in B.Sc. (Physics). Similarly, there is a contradiction in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs representatives of late Abdul Azeez that he was a coolie. If he was a coolie, there is no explanation how a coolie could have earned a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 17. The fact of the matter is that in the insured vehicle, more than the number persons authorised to travel have travelled. The driver of the insured vehicle also did not possess the driving license. Even as per Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, a limit has been prescribed for the number of person who can be carried the goods carriage. As per the aforesaid provision, a goods carriage cannot carry persons beyond the seating capacity excluding the space reserved for the driver. The copy of the Insurance Police shows that the seating capacity is 1+1. The said Rules read as under:- 236. Limit of persons in goods carriage - No person shall be carried in the cabin of a goods carriage beyond the number for which there is a seating accommodation at the rate of thirty eight centimetrs measured along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver, for each person, and not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver shall be carried in any goods carriage. 18. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Manager, HDFC ERCO General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mahalakshmi and Others, dated 11.01.2019, in C.M.A. No. 2835 of 2015. 19. There is no doubt that the Adhil @ Shek Adhil and his father late Abdul Azees travelled in the insured vehicle as gratuitous passengers. 18. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Manager, HDFC ERCO General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mahalakshmi and Others, dated 11.01.2019, in C.M.A. No. 2835 of 2015. 19. There is no doubt that the Adhil @ Shek Adhil and his father late Abdul Azees travelled in the insured vehicle as gratuitous passengers. They did not travel as coolie/load men of the owner of the insured vehicle. This is evident from the fact that if the claimant Adhil @ Shek Adhil was a coolie, he would have not been pursuing a third year B.Sc. (Physics) in a college at the time of the accident. Similarly, if late Abdul Azeez was indeed a coolie/load man as was stated in the claim petition in M.C.OP. No. 330 of 2016, it is unlikely that he would have earned a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 20. Thus, it is clear that the information given in the Exhibit P1 FIR was riddled with contradiction and incorrect information which were given to obtain compensation by unjust means from the Tribunal misstating the facts to suit the prevailing position of law. 21. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is liable to be interfered. Under these circumstances, I set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 2016 and M.C.O.P. No. 328 of 2016 while giving liberty to the claimants to execute the award against the owner of the insured vehicle in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224 . 22. Any amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited by the Insurance Company is permitted to be refunded back together with interest by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 23. In the result, C.M.A. No. 2693 of 2018 and C.M.A. No. 331 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company are allowed with the above observation. C.M.A. Nos. 3858 and 3859 of 2019 are dismissed with the above observation. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.