An 'Act policy' under the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover passenger liability unless explicitly stated; the insurance company cannot be held liable for injuries to unauthorized passengers.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

M.A.C.M.A.No.1503 of 2005 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award and the decree, dated 07.04.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2002 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

M.A.C.M.A.No.1518 of 2005 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award and the decree, dated 07.04.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2002 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

2. The appellant herein is the 2^nd respondent / insurance company. The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The 2^nd respondent is the owner of the jeep bearing No.KA 19 6429.

a. In M.A.C.M.A.No.1503 of 2005, notice sent to the respondent No.1 / claimant was not returned though it was sent to the same address as given before the Tribunal. In M.A.C.M.A.No.1518 of 2005, in spite of service of notice on the respondent No.1 / claimant, there has been no appearance.

b. The appeal against the 2^nd respondent was dismissed for default vide order, dated 03.01.2012, of this Court.

3. The case of the claimant, in brief, is as follows:

a. On 05.12.2001, the claimant, along with the respondent No.1 and others, was travelling in a jeep bearing No.KA 19 M 6429 to attend a party meeting. While the jeep was proceeding near Sugalimitta, at about 09.45 a.m., the driver drove the vehicle in high speed and could not control it. As a result, the vehicle turned turtle and the inmates of the jeep, including the claimant, sustained grievous injuries. The claimant received injuries all over the body and fracture of left clavicle which are permanent in nature. The claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Madanapalle. He was quite hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the disability, the claimant was unable to attend any sort of work and facing too many problems. The respondent No.1 insured his vehicle with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

b. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

c. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the allegations and the injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment, expenses and the disability suffered by him. The respondent No.1 obtained the policy in respect of the vehicle KA 19 M 6429 for the period from 19.09.2001 to 18.09.2002 under the category of private car (zone A) policy-A act only to cover the risk of third parties alone and no premium was paid to cover the risk of inmates of the jeep. The risk of the claimant (in both the O.Ps.) who was one of the inmates of the jeep was not covered under the policy issued to the respondent No.1. The claimant(s) travelled in the jeep as unauthorised and gratuituous passenger and such risk is also not covered under the policy issued to the respondent No.1. Contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent No.1 used the vehicle for commercial purpose and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 as he violated the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. On behalf of the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2002, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and exhibit B1 was marked.

b. On behalf of the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2002, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and exhib