The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claimant was not a fare-paying passenger and that the compensation awarded for disability/loss of future income, loss of income during treatment, and loss of future prospects was excessive. The court set aside the compensation awarded for these heads and awarded a revised compensation amount.

Dilip B. Bhosale , J.—This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.2006 rendered by the Prl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore in MVC. NO.1876/2001. By the impugned Judgment, the claim petition filed by respondent-claimant (for short 'the claimant') has been allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.2,35,78,159.50 together with costs and interest at 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.2,31,94,159.00, i.e. after deducting Rs.3,84,000/-, awarded towards attendant charges, from the date of the petition to the date of actual payment/deposit, against the appellant-Insurance Company (for short "the appellant") and respondent no.3 jointly and severally. The claimant who was 35 years old at the relevant time, was Senior Specialist - Software, working with Ericsson Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.1,48,291/- per month. On 29.1.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. he was travelling in a Tempo Trax from Sakharayapatna to Kadur gate. It is alleged, the driver of the Tempo Trax drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when the vehicle reached near Lakshrhipuram on Chickmagalur - Kadur road, it rammed into a tree. As a result of the impact, the petitioner sustained injures. He was immediately admitted to Government Hospital, Kadur and then to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter, he was treated at other hospitals in Bangalore. He claims that he had spent Rs.6,00,000/- till filing of the petition towards medical treatment. He further claims, the injuries suffered by him in the accident rendered him permanently disabled and that affected him mentally and financially. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 9 crores form the respondents of the injuries/disabilities sustained by him in the said accident.

2. The defence set up by the appellant in short is that the claimant was a fare – paying passenger travelling in a private vehicle insured by them and therefore, he is not covered and entitled for the compensation as prayed for in view of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, it is the case of the appellant that since the insured had paid premium of Rs. 1,000/- to cover personal accident risk of 10 persons, at the most the claimant would be entitled to an amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at considerable length and with their assistance gone through the entire material placed before us.

4. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned Judgment on two grounds. Firstly, in view of the admissions given by the claimant in his cross-examination that he was a fare paying passenger, he is not entitled for any compensation as prayed. In support of this contention he Invited our attention to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy i.e Private Car 'B' Policy which indemnifies the insured in the event of an accident caused by/or arising out of a use of motor car against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in motor car, provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), they shall not be liable whether such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. He also invited our attention to the cross-examination of the claimant in support of this contention. Secondly, he challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of claim for disability/loss of future income, loss of earning during the period of treatment and towards the loss of future prospects. In other words he did not challenge the amounts of compensation awarded under o