IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an authorized passenger is covered under the insurance policy, and the compensation must reflect the actual loss suffered due to the accident.

JUDGMENT :

T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J.

1. In this appeal, the petitioner apart from seeking enhancement has also questioned the liability fastened against the owner to pay the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was a Sales Executive at Tirumala Milk Products Private Ltd. Goods Van bearing Registration No. AP-02-TA-1880, belonging to the 1st respondent was hired by the employer of the petitioner for transportation of milk. On 24.04.2011 at about 5.15 a.m. while he was traveling in the said milk van along with driver and cleaner on Uravakonda - Ananthapur main road, the vehicle was hit against the roadside Neem tree, due to which, he has suffered injuries leading to amputation of his right leg below knee. After taking treatment at Government Hospital, Anantapur, Londa Vishwa Kiran Reddy Hospital, Mandanapalli under hospitalisation for 24 days, he has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.1. The respondents have opposed the claim. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, assessed the compensation of Rs.5,45,800/- with interest at 6% per annum and fastened the liability against the owner of the vehicle. Pleading inadequacy, seeking enhancement and direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Harish Babu K.N. leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has suffered fracture of both the bones of right leg and fracture of right femur. At the spot itself, the right leg of the petitioner was amputated below knee. The petitioner has placed the medical evidence before the Tribunal explaining disability of 70%, but the Tribunal has taken it at 40%. Though the petitioner has produced the pay slip for having drawn salary of Rs.4,805/-, a person with no proof of income in the year 2011 will earn not less than 6,500/-, since the claim is filed under beneficial legislation, higher income has to be taken for assessment of loss of future income. The compensation assessed under different heads is inadequate and sought for enhancement.

5.1. It is further contended that, the Insurance Policy is a package policy which covers the risk of 2 + 1 passengers. The petitioner being Sales Executive, is an authorized passenger under his employer, who hired the lorry from the insured. The Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the insurer for two passengers in addition to driver.

5.2. To buttress his argument, he has relied the judgment of Balu Krishna Chavan vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others, 2023 ACJ 1546.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently contended that, the petitioner is not a direct employee under the insured. The petitioner was an unauthorized passenger at the time of accident. The Insurance Policy does not cover the risk of unauthorized passenger. Even if the petitioner is accepted as an employee of the hirer, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, he is entitled to compensation as prescribed under the Schedule. The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger, there is no coverage under the policy and fastened the liability against the owner of the milk van. The petitioner has not made any efforts to recover the compensation from the owner in spite of the claim being dismissed against the insurer. Now he cannot ask the insurer to pay the compensation. Learned counsel submits that the principles laid down in Balu Krishna Chavan (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case and even pay and recovery cannot be ordered, the owner has to pay the full compensation and accordingly supported the impugned judgment.

7. I have given my anxious