The court established that insurance policies covering third-party risks do not automatically extend to passengers unless explicitly stated and additional premiums are paid, reaffirming the need for clear policy terms regarding coverage.

JUDGMENT

T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J.

In these appeals the appellants have challenged the judgment dtd. 24/7/2013 passed in MVC No.18/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulgarga (Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

2. The 3rd respondent before the Tribunal has filed the MFA No.32944/2013. The petitioners before the Tribunal have filed the connected appeal in MFA No.32076/2013. The parties will be referred with respect to their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the petitioners are the parents of Vinod, the deceased. The deceased suffered severe injuries in a road accident that took place on 22/2/2010 near Teerth Cross, Aland while traveling in a Jeep bearing registration No.MH-26/C-4832. Despite he was provided treatment at Government Hospital, Aland, Basaveswar Hospital Gulbara and Yeshodgara Hospital, Solapur he succumbed to injuries on 24/4/2010. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.32, 32, 000.00. They pleaded that deceased was aged 16 years, a student and was also doing coaching and earning Rs.4, 000.00 per month. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased was a fare paid passenger, jeep being used for transportation of passenger and risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2, 82, 000.00 with 6% interest and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

4. The petitioners have pleaded inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Insurance Company is also before this Court on the grounds that fastening of liability is erroneous, the policy issued was Act policy, it has no cover for the passenger, and the driver of the Jeep was not holding valid DL.

5. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4, 000.00 per month, future prospectus was not added, under conventional heads proper compensation was not awarded and accordingly he sought for re-assessment and enhancement.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company contended that the deceased was fare paying passenger in the Jeep, the policy obtained by the owner was only an Act Policy, the inmates of the Jeep were not covered under the said policy, on the date of accident driver of the jeep did not possess valid driving license and Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation. It is further contended that the policy was not obtained for the passengers, question of applying the principle of pay and recovery does not arise and sought for modification of the liability aspect.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records.

8. Undisputed facts are that the petitioners were parents of the deceased, the deceased was the PUC student, at the time of accident he was traveling in the jeep as a passenger, though jeep was insured, it had no coverage for passengers of the jeep, the age of the deceased as per Ex.P7 - Post Mortem report was 17 years at the time of accident. Petitioners being the parents are entitle to claim compensation on account of death of the deceased.

9. As seen from the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2, 000.00 as he was a student, deducted 50% of it and applied 16' multiplier for calculating loss of dependency. The deceased was 17 years old student, he was said to be earning Rs.4, 000.00 per month being a Coacher. The accident was of the year 2010. The deceased had grown up to the stage of earning. Even for a person without proof of income, a sum of Rs.5, 500.00 is being considered in the Lok Adalat. The petitioners in the petition specifically contended that the deceased was earning Rs.4, 000.00 per month and it is just and proper to accept the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4, 000.00 per month at the time of accident. By applying the principles laid down in Nationa