The main legal point established was that a comprehensive policy does not necessarily cover the risk of a pillion rider, and the terms of the policy and relevant legal provisions are crucial in determining coverage.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dt. 25-2-1986 passed by the M. A. C. T.-I, Bangalore Rural District, awarding a compensation of Rs. 83,500/- for the death of one A. E. Krishnappa, the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 4 who are impleaded as respondents 1 to 4 in M. F. A. 1181/86 and who are the appellants in the other appeal.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to by the rank they held in the Tribunal.

( 3 ) NOW there is no dispute about the facts that on 22-9-1984 when the deceased Krishnappa was going on the pillion of the motor cycle M. F. S. 8212 belonging to the first respondent and driven by the third respondent to come to Bangalore and that on the way on account of the rash or negligent driving of the motor cycle by the third respondent Krishnappa was thrown off and he sustained bleeding injuries to which he succumbed later. The Tribunal, for the purpose of determining the compensation payable, has taken the loss of dependency suffered by the petitioner at Rs. 500/- per month and adopting the multiplier 12, as the deceased was aged 33 years, has awarded Rs. 72. 000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased, Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- towards expenses for transporting the body and for funeral, in all a total sum of Rs. 83,500/- has been awarded as compensation. Though the insurer, third respondent, had contended that under the policy the risk of the pillion rider is not Covered and as such they are not liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal has negatived that contention on the ground that the policy was a comprehensive policy.

( 4 ) THE insurer-third respondent has filed the appeal in M. F. A. 1181/86 questioning the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation. The petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation in M. F. A. 1314/86.

( 5 ) THE first point that requires consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the policy covers the risk of pillion rider also as it is comprehensive policy. The learned counsel for the insurer contended that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the insurer to cover the risk of pillion rider that even under the terms of the policy issued in this case there is no coverage of the rash considering the pillion rider and that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurer merely because the policy issued was a comprehensive policy. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore (AIR 1988 SC 719) to contend that merely because a policy is a comprehensive policy it does not mean that it covers all types of risks and that it is only such risks, for which extra premium is paid and there is a special agreement for coverage which would be covered.

( 6 ) IN the above decision, dealing with the Scope of a comprehensive policy, the Supreme Court has held as hereunder:"even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an 'act only' policy it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured a higher premium than for an 'act only' policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitle the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-sec. (2) of S. 85 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement