Point of Law: comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy.” As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in MACP No. 916 of 1997, the appellant-insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:

Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on 13.2.1997, wherein two vehicles are involved i.e. Ambassador Car bearing registration no. GJ-13-9792 and truck involved in the accident bearing registration no. GJ-2P-7374. As per the record, it transpires that the accident occurred on Surendrangar Muli road, near Godavari Village. An FIR came to be lodged at Exh.88 and Panchnama at Exh.89. The claim petition was filed by the claimant and claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after Taking into consideration the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record, considered the disability as agreed between the parties at 15% of the body as a whole as per Exh.101 as well as certificate at Exh.102 and came to the conclusion that the original claimant had increased 25% of the disability of the body as a whole. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 750/- per month and applying multiplier of 16, awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation under the future loss of income. Over and above the same, the Tribunal was pleased to award Rs. 25,000/- as medical expenses, Rs. 3,000/- for special food/diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 3,000/- towards attendance charges, Rs. 15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,71,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurance Company.

3. Heard Ms. Karuna Rahevar, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 original claimant, Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent no. 3 insurance Company and Mr. Rahul Dave, learned advocate for Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Though served, no one appears for the respondent no. 2.

4. Ms. Karuna Rahevar, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the policy of Ambassador Car involved in the accident was “T.P. Policy only A type.” It was contended that as can be seen from the certificate-cum-policy schedule at Exh.110, it was contended that it was “T.P. Policy only A type.” It was therefore contended that the policy being “act only policy” the insurance Company cannot be made liable for the claim raised by the original claimant as he was occupant in a private vehicle. It was also contended that except additional premium of Rs. 15/- for personal accident, no further or other risk has been indemnified by the appellant. Ms. Rahevar has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and Another, AIR 2013 SC 473 to support her contention.

5. Ms. Ajmera, learned advocate for the claimant has submitted that the question of liability is kept open by the Tribunal and therefore, the claimant should not be made to suffer and the compensation be paid to the claimant. It was contended that even if this Court thinks it fit to remand back the proceedings, the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal should be paid to the claimant as liability of the insurance Company and the owner is to be decided.

6. Mr. Rahul Dave, learned advocate for Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned advocate for respondents no. 4 and 5 i.e. owner and driver, submitted that the amount involved is only Rs. 51,000/- and therefore, on smallness of amount, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Relying upon the observations made by the Tribunal in Paragraphs 23 and 24, it was conten