JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanabhapuram.) 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.12.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanapuram. 2. The appellant herein is the third respondent. The first respondent herein is the claimant. The second and third respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the original claim petition. 3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008 is as follows: The petitioner is a student, he was studying in 8th Standard. On 26.02.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in the driver's cabin in an Auto bearing registration No.TN-74-V-3341, the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle capsized and the petitioner sustained injury. He was admitted in CSI Hospital, Kulasekaram and he undergone surgery and took treatment as inpatient from 26.02.2007 to 06.03.2007. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. 4. Brief substance of counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008, is as follows: The accident happened due to the carelessness and negligence of the petitioner himself. The petitioner did not sustain any loss. The vehicle was insured with the third respondent. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation. 5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008, is as follows: The injured was travelling in the cabin of a load Auto. The accident had happened only due to the negligence of the injured. The injured is leading his normal life. The petitioner has to prove that the first respondent has valid driving license. The rate of interest claimed is excessive. The age of the petitioner has to be proved. 6. Two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,288/- as compensation. Against the award, the third respondent approached this Court by way of appeal. 7. 6. Two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,288/- as compensation. Against the award, the third respondent approached this Court by way of appeal. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no necessity for the insurer to pay compensation. The injured was a student and not a load man in the goods carrier. The injured was only an unauthorized passenger in a goods carrier and the third respondent has to be exonerated from the liability, the quantum of compensation is excessive and the award has to be set aside. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that admittedly the petitioner travelled only as a passenger and there is no necessity for the insurance company to prove the same. A judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (1) CTC 1 (Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Dharmapuri Town Vs.Nagammal and others) is cited. 9. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was a passenger in the Auto. Disability certificate was already marked. The award fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. The petitioner travelled only in the cabin of the auto. The seating capacity of the load auto is two. A judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (2) TLNJ 275 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Attur Vs. Dhanapal and others) is cited, wherein this Court has awarded compensation for a 12 years old girl, who travelled in a tractor. Another unreported judgment in C.M.A.No.583 of 2008, (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Karaikudi Vs. Lakshmi and others) dated 12.02.2021, is cited, wherein this Court has held that when insurance company collected premium for passengers, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the injured did not travell as a load man or as the owner of the goods or as their representative. Only a load man, owner of the goods or the representative of the owner are entitled to claim compensation under the policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the unauthorized passenger. 11. Only a load man, owner of the goods or the representative of the owner are entitled to claim compensation under the policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the unauthorized passenger. 11. Copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P1; copy of the observation mahazer was marked as Ex.P2; copy of rough sketch was marked as Ex.P3. copy of MVI report was marked as Ex.P4; copy of the charge sheet was marked as Ex.P5; copy of the judgment in S.T.C.No.1066 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Padmanabapuram was marked as Ex.P6. On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and on the basis of Exs.P1 to P6, it is decided that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto driver. 12. Copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1; copy of the R.T.O letter was marked as Ex.R2 and copy of the R.C. Book was marked as Ex.R3. Seating capacity including the driver mentioned in the policy is two persons. When the seating capacity is two in an auto, the contention of the appellant is not sustainable. There is no evidence on the part of the appellant to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license. In the above circumstances, the appellant cannot be exonerated. 13. Copy of the wound certificate was marked as Ex.P7. Copy of the disability certificate was marked Ex.P9. P.W.2 fixed the disability at 20%. For 20% disability, the Tribunal has awarded 40,000/- as compensation, which is reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment charges, Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards damages to clothes and other articles and the award is reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,800/- towards attendant charges and the same is rounded off to Rs.2,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,488/- towards medical expenses and the same is rounded off to Rs.11,500/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for one grievous injury and Rs.2,000/- for two simple injuries, which are not reasonable. Since compensation is awarded for disability, there is no necessity to award separate compensation for the injuries. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future expectation and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of happiness, which are not reasonable. For the above said reasons, the award is modified to Rs. Since compensation is awarded for disability, there is no necessity to award separate compensation for the injuries. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future expectation and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of happiness, which are not reasonable. For the above said reasons, the award is modified to Rs. 90,500/-. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 14.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanabhapuram. is hereby reduced from Rs.1,22,288/- to Rs.90,500/-. 16. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.90,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit and cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the compensation of the minor claimant /first respondent herein in any one of the Nationalised Bank, in a Fixed Deposit scheme, till he attains majority. One Santhakumari, who is the mother and guardian of the minor claimant, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minor. The Claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. Excess amount if any shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.