IMPORTANT POINT
An 'Act Only Policy' does not cover pillion riders unless additional premium is paid, and such riders cannot be treated as third parties under the insurance policy in the context of liability for accidents.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

1. Heard Mr. V. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. N. Sarmah, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4.

2. This Motor Accident Claims Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, Nagaland in MAC Case No.07/2019, whereby the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 15,81,922/-only along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment of the compensation amount to the claimants.

3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal, in brief, are as follows:

i. The appellant is an Insurance Company subsidiary to the General Insurance Corporation of India and as such, a Government of India undertaking actively involved in the business of general insurance.

ii. On 20.01.2019, the deceased Ranjan Bhunya riding pillion on the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS 07 A 8242, which was driven by the Respondent No. 4, while they were returning from Patholi Pahar Centre towards his residence met with an accident at Pithaguri Missing Gaon when a herd of cows running on the road blocked the road and a bull, one of the bulls suddenly created commotion in the herd. As the motorcycle was coming at a high speed, in order to avoid hitting to the aggressive herd the driver applied sharp brake and due to the heavy jerk, the pillion rider of the motor was thrown out of the said motorcycle a few feet apart on the road. The accident caused grievous injuries on his person, and consequently, the pillion rider succumbed to his injuries in the hospital, while taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him.

iii. Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 who are the father, mother and sister of the deceased Ranjan Bhuyan, filed a Motor Accident Claim Case under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of late Ranjan Bhuyan in the aforementioned vehicular accident.

iv. The said case was registered as MAC Case No. 07/2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, Nagaland.

v. The respondent No. 4 was made the opposite party No. 1 in the said claim case. Whereas, the present appellants were made Respondent No. 2 and 3 in the said claim case. All the opposite parties filed their written statement in the said claim case.

vi. It is pertinent to mention herein that the appellants, submitting their written statements as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have taken specific plea in paragraph No. 2 of their written statement that the deceased was a pillion rider and was not insured under the insurance policy, as same did not cover the pillion rider as it was only an “Act Only Policy”. Therefore, the appellants denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, had framed four issues in the MAC Case No. 07/2019 and the claimants examined three witnesses in support of their claim. However, no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. After completion of the inquiry, learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, by the judgment and award impugned in this appeal had awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 15,81,922/-to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (claimants) along with an interest of 9% per annum from the day of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant was directed to pay the awarded compensation within 30 days of the date of the impugned order.

5. Mr. V. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the main ground on which the appellant has preferred this instant appeal is that in the instant case Though the insurance company had taken the plea in paragraph No.2 of