A comprehensive/package policy covers the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car, and the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability under such a policy.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and award dated 21st April 2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.740 of 2008 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary - II), Additional District Judge, Mahesana, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the exoneration of the Insurance Company.

2. The original claim of the claimant was for Rs.1,00,000/-. As against that, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,160/- as just compensation.

3. It is the case of the claimant that on 9th October 2008, the claimant was going on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-2AH- 1638 as pillion rider, which was being driven and owned by his brother i.e. the opponent No.1. However, due to speed, the motorcycle slipped, wherein the claimant sustained grievous injuries, and thereby, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be preferred before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received in the vehicle accident.

4. The learned Tribunal, after having considered the evidence on record, held that the claimant received injuries due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the motor cycle. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to award compensation under the various heads. The full and final compensation came to be awarded at Rs.1,35,160/-. However, considering the Insurance Policy, which is in the nature of a package policy and having found no additional premium paid, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the appellant – original claimant is here before this Court by way of present appeal challenging, inter alia, exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability.

6. I have heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company.

7. Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, has raised a sole contention that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. According to Mr. Thakore, the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated as the policy was in the nature of a package policy and thereby, no need to pay any extra premium covering the risk of pillion rider. Mr. Thakore, however, submitted that when the package policy and/or comprehensive policy is issued, in that event, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the claim of the pillion rider as well as the occupant of a private car. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Thakore has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731.

8. By making the above submissions, Mr. Thakore has prayed this Court to allow the appeal accordingly.

9. Per contra, Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal, however, could not dispute the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra). Mr. Thakkar has, therefore, urged this Court to pass appropriate orders.

10. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone the record and proceedings of the concerned Tribunal. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, except what are stated hereinabove.

11. Having heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and having through the material produced on record, the only question that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company only because the policy was a package policy and no additional premium was paid for pillion rider?

12. The aforesaid question