The court ruled that comprehensive insurance covers pillion rider risks, enhancing compensation to Rs.9,76,000 due to inadequate assessment by the Tribunal.

ORDER :

(J. C. DOSHI, J.)

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1208 of 2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 20.08.2003, the claimant was going as pillion rider on the motorcycle, and when the said motorcycle rached near the place of incident, the driver of motorcycle lost control, as a result, the claimant received serious injuries.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed compensation on lower side by adopting income at Rs.21,000/- per year and same is below minimum rate of wages. It is submitted that the claimants have led evidence of Rameshbhai Raichandbhai at Exh.19 who owned factory of policing rough diamond, wherein, the claimant was working at the time of road accident. According to deposition of Rameshbhai being employer at Exh.19 and certificate issued by him at Exh.20, the claimant was earning Rs.5000/- per month as labourer for policing rough diamond. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has not considered this issue properly. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has committed less compensation for loss of future prospects as in the present case, the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 13% which is accepted by both the parties on volition. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in granting Rs.7500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and other heads are also compensated meagerly. Therefore, he submits to enhance the amount of compensation.

3.1. Secondly, it is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that though policy of the vehicle was comprehensive policy, learned Tribunal limits insurance company's liability to Rs.25,000/- on the ground that policy was taken for personal accident. It is submitted that since there is comprehensive policy, risck of the pillion rider is purchased, insurance complay is liable to satisfy entire amount of compenation which is assessed by learned Tribunal under section 166 of MV Act.

3.2. On above submissions, it is submitted to allow the appeal.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai for Insurance Company supports reasoning, observation and finding of impugned judgment and submitted that risk of pillow rider is purchased for Rs.25,000/- and therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay more than Rs.25,000/-, which is rightly done by learned Tribunal. It is submitted that though claimant has led evidence of employer, but documents are produced to substantiate oral evidence that he is employer of claimant and was giving Rs.5000/- towards salary to the claimant. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submitted that if deponent is employer of claimant, he would have easily produced on record register showing name of the claimant as his employee, also copy of cash book to show that he his owner of Vimal Diamond - employer of claimant. Since no such documents are produced on record, certificate at Exh.20 certifying income of the claimant to be Rs.5000/- cannot be believed and rightly discarded by learned Tribunal. In nutshell, learned advocate Ms.Desai submits to sustain impugned judgment and award.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and going through evidence on record, adoption of Rs.21,000/- yearly income of the claimant is by no means justified approach of learned Tribunal. Minimum rate of wages of skilled labourer at the relevant time was Rs.2300/- per month. Claimant has examined one Rameshbhai Raichandbhai claiming him as employer and also produced certificate stating that claimant was getting monthly salary of Rs.5000/-. However, this evidence cannot be believed as gospel truth in absence of any documentary evidence to suggest that Rameshbhai was employer of claimant and owned Vimal Dia