Occupants in a 'Liability Only Policy' are not considered third parties, limiting the insurer's liability and subjecting the vehicle owner to full compensation obligations for injuries sustained by occupants.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. MFA No.20278/2013 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.09.2012 passed in MVC No.2617/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, v seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Whereas, MFA Nos.20634 and 20635 of 2013 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.09.2012 passed in MVC Nos.2617/2010 and 980/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, questioning the liability fastened on it to pay compensation.

3. It is the case of claimant that the claimant-Manjula was waiting for the bus to go to her village Chikkoppa and claimant-Mallavva was travelling in the Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M-851 and claimant- Shivabasappa was traveling in Cruiser bearing Registration No.KA-06/A-3611 and the drivers of both vehicles came in opposite directions to each other and dashed together and caused the accident. Therefore, the claimants sustained injuries.

4. Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal while awarding compensation held that the accident was caused entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax bearing Registration No.KA-28/M-851. Thus, it was held that the owner and insurer of the Tempo Trax are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and exonerated the owner and insurer of the Cruiser vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-06/A-3611.

5. The claimant-Manjula has preferred appeal in MFA No.20278/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation. Whereas, the insurer of the Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M-8581 has preferred appeals in MFA Nos.20634 and 20635 of 2013 on the ground that the insurance policy is an ‘Act Policy’, but the claimants Manjula and Mallavva were travelling as occupants in the Tempo Trax. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, but the owner of the Tempo Trax alone is liable to pay compensation.

6. Ex.P-1 is FIR and complaint; Ex.P-2 is statement of one Rudrappa Budhihal; Ex.P-3 is spot panchanama; Ex.P-4 is the IMV report; Ex.P-5 is charge sheet; Ex.P-6 is copy of statement of claimant-Manjula.

7. Upon perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record, it is established that the entire allegation of rash and negligent driving pertains to the driver of Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-28/M-851. It is alleged that the said accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of Tempo Trax. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed only against the driver of the said Tempo Trax. It is also proved that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA-06 A-3611. Hence only the driver of Tempo Trax No.KA-28 M- 5851 has been arrayed as the accused in charge sheet.

8. Ex. P6 is statement of claimant-Manjula, in which, she clearly states that she was waiting for a bus with intention of returning to her village. In contrast, Ex. P7—Wound Certificate of Mallawwa demonstrates that Mallawwa was travelling as passenger in the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851, on her way to her own village. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said Tempo Trax driver, the accident occurred. Therefore, in light of foregoing evidence, it is conclusively established that the accident was caused entirely by the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851.”

9. Ex.R1 is copy of insurance policy pertaining to the said Tempo Trax. It is an admitted fact that it i