D. B. BHOSALE, J.

( 1 ) ORIENTAL Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the instant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the act") against the judgment and order dated 19th and 21st June, 2002 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Application No. 2201 of 1994. By the impugned judgment the appellant and respondent No. 2 - driver/owner of the two wheeler, involved in the accident, are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay, to the claimant - respondent No. 1, the compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. Leave to defend respondent No. 2 as contemplated under section 170 of the Act was granted to the appellant.

( 2 ) FEW facts may be stated in order to better comprehend the question posed before us. On 13-1-1994 at about 5. 45 p. m. the claimant - respondent No. 1 was pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing registration No. MH-02-D-6643 driven by respondent No. 2. He was allegedly driving at an excessive speed and while attempting to overtake a stationary vehicle/tempo on Andheri-Kurla Road without keeping a safe distance and proper look-out, collided against the door of the stationary vehicle resulting in a serious accident. Due to the impact respondent No. 1 was thrown on the right side of the road. According to respondent No. 1 the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle causing him serious injuries. The other version that has come on the record is that when due to the impact of collision respondent No. 1 was thrown on the road, a truck passing by the said road dashed him which caused serious injury to his lumber region. Respondent No. 1 claims that at the time of accident he was in the best of health and was actively attending to his business of manufacturing special purpose machines and press tools, run under the name and style of "aum Ventures" Nanddham Industrial Estate, Marol, Mumbai. Due to the accident the applicant was bed ridden for about six months and as a result thereof his business came to standstill and he lost goodwill amounting to great financial loss. He further claims that due to the accident he suffered great physical and mental pain and he was also required to incur heavy expenditure on the medical treatment. Against this backdrop he had also expressed apprehension of having suffered a permanent disability and loss of future earning capacity. It may be noticed at this stage that no permanent disability of whatsoever nature was pointed out having suffered by respondent No. 1. It is against this backdrop he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000/- with interest.

( 3 ) THE motor accident claims tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded Rs. 2,65,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application. The rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle causing grave injuries to respondent No. 1 is held to be proved. The contention of the appellant that insurance policy did not cover the pillion rider and hence it is not liable to pay the compensation to respondent No. 1, however, has been negatived by the tribunal.

( 4 ) WE heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, depositions and all other material placed before us. The argument advanced by Mr. Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant, was three fold. Firstly, it is clear from the evidence on record that respondent No. 2 was not rash and negligent when the accident occurred and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. It is only because of the negligence of the driver/owner of the stationary tempo, who opened the door suddenly, the accident occurred. Secondly, he submitted that the tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the parties recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of composite negligence for which respondent No