( 1 ) ONE Parpudi Srinivasa rao, aged about 28 years was travelling on a scooter as pillion. The said scooter bearing No. AP 31 A 468 met with an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the person driving the scooter. Said Srinivasa Rao died in the accident near Yendada bus stop at Km. Stone No. 6/7. His wife, two minor children and mother filed O. P. No. 693 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional district Judge, Visakhapatnam. The claim was opposed by the insurance company. They also alleged that the vehicle was driven by Srinivasa Rao and that the insurance policy does not cover him. Alternatively, it is alleged that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of pillion rider on motor cycle. The amount claimed was also disputed. The claimants examined PW 1 (wife of the deceased) and PW 2 (mother of the deceased) and marked Exhs. A-1 to a-13, including the insurance policy, as exh. A-11. The respondents examined rw 1, Assistant of the insurance company and RW 2, owner of the scooter besides marking Exhs. B-1 to B-7. After framing the relevant issues, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. On the question of compensation, the learned Tribunal arrived at multiplicand at Rs. 1,500 per month. On the date of accident the age of the deceased was determined as 28 years and applying multiplier of 14, total sum of Rs. 1,68,000 towards loss of dependency and an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium was awarded. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the insurance company filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant mr. K. L. N. Rao submits that as per Exh. A-11/b-4 policy, the pillion rider is not covered under the policy. He also submits that as per the copy of the F. I. R. which is marked as Exh. B-l the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and, therefore, the policy does not cover the same. He also placed reliance on the judgment in Surjit singh v. Santosh Kumari, 1989 ACJ 466 (Pandh); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Marni Ramana, 1996 (2) ALT 549 and sada Nirmala v. Indrapaul Singh, 1998 acj 849 (AP ). These submissions have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Murali Lincoln.

( 3 ) BEFORE appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to Exh. B-4 policy. In the policy it is mentioned that seating capacity of Bajaj Chetak scooter is 1+1. The limitations as to use of the vehicle are also mentioned in the policy. These are, the insured vehicle can be used only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for insured s business or profession. The policy does not, however, cover the use of the scooter for hire or reward or for organized racing, pace making, reliability trials, speed testing, etc. It is nowhere specifically mentioned that the policy does not cover the pillion rider. Indeed, when the policy itself recognises that the seating capacity of the scooter is 1+1, it is reasonable to infer that the policy covers the pillion rider as well.

( 4 ) INSOFAR as Exh. B-1 and/or A-4 copy of F. I. R. is concerned, the same is registered on information given by one Parpudi venkata Rao. It reveals that on 4. 7. 1990 at about 8 p. m. Parpudi Srinivasa Rao, driving the scooter AP 31 A 468 with S. Dhana koti (respondent No. 5 herein), the scooter mechanic and that he was driving the scooter in an intoxicated condition when the accident occurred at Km. Stone 6/7 at yendada. Exh. A-4 was marked by PW 1. The contents thereof were not proved by examining the person who recorded the f. I. R. or the Inspector of police who investigated the offence. The F. I. R. also contains the statements given by respondent no. 6 herein, who is the owner of the scooter and the uncle of the deceased. He only gave opinion that Srinivasa Rao died when he was driving the scooter in intoxicated condition. In the absence of any proof of this, the statements