A comprehensive policy covers the liability of a pillion rider, and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the death of the pillion rider.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

2. Present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 449/1995 dated 29th June 2007. By this judgment compensation were directed to pay by the appellant in favour of claimant i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Facts in brief are as under:

Claimant - respondent No. 1 to 3 filed claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.11,27,000/-, in respect of death of one Kishor Damodhar Bingewar. Accident took place on 17/03/1995 at about 2.00 p.m. near village Gangalwadi on Barad - Kinni road.

4. It is contention of the appellant that the deceased was a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration MH - 34/C-1735 which was registered in the name of the present appellant No. 1. Due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant no. 2, who was driving the vehicle, the vehicle skidded, as a result of which grievous injuries were caused to the deceased who died after shifting to the hospital. It is further contention of the appellant no. 2 that he was not riding the vehicle and he was pillion rider and deceased himself was riding the vehicle at the relevant time. As such, act of rash and negligent driving cannot be attributed to him.

5. It was the contention of Insurance Company that policy does not cover third party/person’s liability and it is act policy and as such Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. It is the contention of the appellant that the First Information Report was registered against the appellant. The statement of appellant No. 2 came to be recorded and they were charge sheeted. Learned JMFC acquitted appellant No. 2. It is also contended that it was established before Criminal Court that appellant No. 2 was not driving the vehicle and deceased Kishor was driving the vehicle. Tribunal may arrive at different finding, however, weightage has to be given for the finding recorded by the Criminal Court. The learned Tribunal has not given any consideration to these finding and considered only the statement which was recorded by the Police under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure passed the order. The learned Tribunal directed appellants to pay the compensation, without considering this fact that policy was comprehensive one in nature and it covers liability of third party including that of the gratuitous persons liability.

7. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal drawn erroneous finding on the basis of statement before the Police that appellant No. 2 was riding the vehicle specifically when there is finding of Criminal Court that deceased was riding the vehicle. In view thereof, there is no question of any rash and negligent driving by appellant No. 2. The police statements are inadmissible in evidence is not considered by the Tribunal as held in Parvat Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 33 reads as thus:

However, as per the settled proposition of law a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. As per the settled proposition of law, the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions. Therefore, as such, the High Court has erred in relying upon the statement of PW8 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. while observing that the appellants were having the lathis.

8. It is further contention of the claimant that Claims Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the policy was comprehensive one and therefore, Insurance Company was liable to compensate for third party. However, believing on the statement made by the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal erroneously held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

9. As against this learned Counsel Shri C.A.