The main legal point established is that under the new act, the insurer is compulsorily required to cover the risk of passengers of a private car or any passenger carrying vehicle.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a motor accident claim. M. f. a. No. 3576 of 1999 is by the owner-insured of the car bearing No. Mys 2993 against absolving his insurer of the liability to indemnify him and m. f. a. No. 3739 of 1999 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries he suffered in a motor accident that occurred on 25. 4. 1993.

( 2 ) BY the judgment impugned in these appeals, the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,750 along with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum and has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. Mys 2993 (in which the claimant was travelling) and the bus bearing No. Ka 15-621 and has apportioned the negligence between the two vehicles equally. Accordingly, both the owners of the vehicles are made jointly liable to pay the awarded amount in equal proportions. As the bus had been insured, the insurer of the bus was made liable to the extent of 50 per cent of the award being the liability of the bus owner. However, the insurer of the car was absolved of the liability on the ground that the risk of the claimant, who was a passenger of the car (private car) was not required to be covered under the provisions of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new act' for short) as the policy, exh. R-1, issued in respect of the car was only an 'act policy'.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant (owner of the car) in m. f. a. No. 3576 of 1999 submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal on the aspect of negligence requires to be interfered with as it is not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Without prejudice to the said contention, he also submitted that the tribunal had erred in law in not making the insurer of the car liable as an insurer is required in law to cover the risk of passengers of a private car as per the provisions of the new act. On this aspect, he relied upon the following judgments of this court and of madras and madhya pradesh high courts: (I) new India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Rajendra Singh, 2000 ACJ 1039 (karnataka); (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jahur Begum, 2001 ACJ 1655 (karnataka); (iii) Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. V. Minaxi, 2000 ACJ 385 (karnataka); (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rasheeda, 1998 ACJ 1404 (karnataka); (v) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Vijay Kumar, 2003 ACJ 523 (madras'); and (vi) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Radha Rani, 1999 ACJ 1524 (mp ).

( 4 ) MR. M. s. mandanna, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the policy issued was an 'act policy' and the risk of passengers of a private car is not compulsorily required to be covered even under the new act.

( 5 ) IN m. f. a. No. 3739 of 1999, the claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation. The appellant's counsel was absent. In the interest of justice, I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on this aspect also.

( 6 ) ON the contentions urged, the following three questions fall for determination in this appeal: (I) whether the finding of the tribunal on the aspect of negligence is correct? (ii) whether the compensation assessed by the tribunal requires to be enhanced? (iii) whether the tribunal had erred in law in not making the insurer of the car liable to indemnify the insured?re: negligence

( 7 ) THE evidence on record would disclose that the accident had occurred almost on the middle of the road due to collision of both the vehicles, namely, the car bearing No. Mys 2993 and the bus bearing No. Ka 15-621 which were coming from opposite directions. The drivers of both the vehicles had not tendered any evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by claimant. The police also had prosecuted the drivers of both the vehicles for rash and negligent driving. On the evidence on record, the finding of the tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of bbth the vehicles in equal propor