The court clarified the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and its coverage of risk for a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Jalgaon in M. A. C. Petition No. 194/2000. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Member has granted compensation of Rs. 13,03,320/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. from the date of petition (2. 3. 2000) till the date of actual payment or deposit in the court. Original respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (owner and Insurance Company) are directed to satisfy the liability.

( 2 ) THE present appeal being by Insurance company, henceforth for the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall refer to the parties as claimant, owner and Insurance company. Present respondent No. 1. was the petitioner before the Tribunal and he is the claimant/person injured in the accident in question. Present respondent No. 3 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The accident in question took place on 19th August, 1997 at about 7. 30 p. m. The claimant is a Lawyer by profession. At the material time, he was travelling along with shri K. D. Patil, Chairman of the Maharashtra co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited and one Dinkar dayaram Patil to Aurangabad for the purpose of attending a case pertaining to the said Bank in the High Court. Present respondent No. 2 was the driver of the vehicle. It is contended that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, as a result of which it slipped away from the road, turned turtle and fell in a ditch. Petitioner suffered severe injuries including fracture of right side thigh bone. He was initially admitted in a hospital at Parola and then shifted to Jalgaon in the hospital of Dr. Pratap jadhav and ultimately he was also required to take some treatment at J. J. Hospital, Bombay. On three occasions, he was subjected to surgical treatment. Even after treatment, he has suffered permanent disability. He is unable to bend his right leg which is now become marginally short. Petitioner was aged 50 years at the time of accident. He has been practising in the courts at Parola, Dhule, Amalner and Jalgaon on Civil, Criminal, Revenue and Co-operative sides. Due to prolonged treatment, his legal practice was adversely affected. He also could not pay attention to his agricultural land. Consequently, petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. He had also expressed willingness to pay Additional Court fee in the event, the Tribunal was pleased to award higher amount of compensation.

( 3 ) OWNER and driver, in spite of service, did not file any written statement. The petition was mainly contested by the Insurance company, which denied the claim of the claimant in toto for want of information and requested that the claimant be put to strict proof of all the allegations, without raising any specific defence.

( 4 ) HEARD respective Counsel for respective parties.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the Insurance company has raised a twofold challenge. Firstly, he has challenged the quantum of compensation and on this count, the Lawyer of the owner is with the Lawyer of the insurance Company. As a second line of argument, it was submitted that the liability of insurance Company is limited to the extent of liability as imposable by additional premium paid, as indicated in the policy document and, therefore, the entire liability cannot be saddled upon the Insurance Company as joint and several liability of the owner and insurance Company. It is the claim of the insurance Company that the injured was occupant of the vehicle and, therefore, he is not a "third person", as contemplated by section 147 and, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to satisfy the entire compensation amount. On this count, the owner is in conflict with the Insurance Company and he falls on the side of the claimant in praying that the Insurance