The claimant as well as the Insurance Company are in appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the MACT, Kudligi, (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.1020/2009.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the claimant being the son of the deceased Smt. Jayashree instituted the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of his mother who died in the motor vehicle accident on 10.01.2009 while travelling in the car bearing registration No.KA 35/M 1431 which was duly insured with the Insurance Company. On service of notice, the Insurance Company appeared and resisted the claim. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability foisted on it.

3. Sri N.R. Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Insurer sans appreciating the fact that the policy issued to the offending vehicle was ‘private car liability only policy’ as per Ex.R.1 in which there was no coverage to the occupants/inmates of the private car. The risk of the occupants/inmates of the private car was neither covered under the policy issued by the Insurer nor contemplated under the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal acted perversely in observing that the deceased is not the owner of the vehicle and is a third party and therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation on account of the death of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal erroneously observed that the appellant has collected premium to cover the risk of the third parties and as such, the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The said finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. He further contends that the inmates/occupants/passengers of the private vehicle do not fall within the definition of the word ‘third party’. Hence, the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injured person or death of the said occupants/passengers/inmates in a private vehicle. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

i. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi & Ors., 2009 ACJ 104,

ii. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 404,

iii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan & Another, 2013 ACJ 199,

iv. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417.

4. Per contra, Sri S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would contend that the policy in question though was a ‘private car liability only policy’, the Insurer had collected additional premium to cover the risk of the third parties at Rs.800/-. As such, the Insurer cannot be exonerated from the liability of indemnifying the insured. The deceased was travelling as an occupant of the private car. She was not a party to the contractual obligation entered into between the insured and the Insurer. Thus, she is a third party.

The additional premium being paid to cover the risk of the third parties, the Insurer is liable to satisfy the award. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments;

5. Learned counsel further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant. The compensation awarded is not in conformity with the well settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’b