An 'act only policy' does not cover the risk of a pillion rider, and the liability for compensation in such cases is joint and several, with the insurance company of the other vehicle being held liable to satisfy the award.

JUDGMENT :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, in MACP No. 584 of 2006, the insurance company of motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ3AD4462 involved in the accident has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal

2.1 The accident took place on 20.08.2005 at 7.30 PM near village Gundala within the local limits of Jasdan Police Station between the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ3AD4462 and Motor Cycle bearing registration No. GJ3AR5446. Because of the accident, the pillion rider of motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ3AD4462 succumbed to the injuries and died. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station and the present claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. It was the case of the claimants

2.2 It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3 lakhs per annum. The insurance policy of the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ3AD4462 came to be produced at exhibit 54. The original claimant Maganbhai Gobarbhai Damasiya came to be examined at exhibit 43 who has deposed the manner in which the accident has taken place. The documents such as FIR at exhibit 44, panchnama of the scene of accident at exhibit 45, chargesheet at exhibit 46, injury certificate at exhibit 47, PM report at exhibit 48, village form no.6 at exhibit 50, 8A at exhibit 51 and 7/12 at exhibit 52 showing the deceased as owner of agricultural were produced.

2.3 The Tribunal though came to the conclusion that the insurance police at exhibit 54 was “act only” policy, covering the risk of the motorcycle bearing GJ3AD4462, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs. 1,42,500/ with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation and provided that the appellant insurance company as well as the other opponents are jointly and severally liable. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ3AD4462 has preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent no.8, the other insurance company and Mr. Bharat Shah, learned advocate appears for respondent no. 1 to 5. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents.

4. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has misread the insurance policy produced at exhibit 54. Mr. Shelat contended that though the Tribunal was conscious enough that the said policy was “act only policy” with limited liability, the appellant insurance company has also been made liable. Mr.Shelat further contended that it is a matter of fact that the deceased was a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ3AD4462, the risk of pillion rider was not covered as it was “act only policy”. Mr. Shelat further relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramdevbhai Dahyabhai Mokaria and Ors. in First Appeal No. 505 of 2015 and contended that the appellant insurance company deserves to be exonerated.

5. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.8 insurance company submitted that the insurance policy at exhibit 54 is an “act only policy” and as the risk of the pillion rider is not covered, the appellant insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the award. Mr. Nanavati therefore submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders.

6. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

7. I have perused the original Record and Proceedings and considering the sole contention raised by Mr. Shelat, the insurance policy at exhibit 54 deserve