The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the registered owner for compensation in a car accident, as well as the interpretation of the insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 31A, and its implications for passenger risk coverage.

Jagannadha Raju, J.

These two appeals arise out of an award dated 5-5-1989 in M. V.O.P. No. 520 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. M.F.A No. 566 of 1989 is filed by the claimants who are legal representatives and dependents of Antony Alexander who died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in which the car K.L.O.4828 driven by the appellant in M.F.A No. 627 of 1989 was involved.

2. Parties to the appeals will be referred to in this judgment by their ranking before the Tribunal. The facts of the case are: First respondent, Dr.T. V. Jose is registered owner of the car. Second respondent was the driver employed by him. The car was insured by the third respondent. The insurance policy was valid for the period 25-11-1986 to 24-11-1987. On 9-4-1987, Antony Alexander and others were travelling in the car from Kottayam to Shertallai. The car reached Kothanalloor at about 7.45 p.m. On account of rash and negligent driving by the second respondent, the car swerved to right side, hit against compound wall on the right side and as a result of the impact the backdoor of the car suddenly flew open and Alexander was thrown out. He hit against the compound wall and sustained 21 injuries. He was taken to Medical College

Hospital, Kottayam. He died at 4.30 a.m. the next morning.

3. Petitioners, the widow, children and parents of Antony Alexander filed claim petition contending that they are entitled to compensation of over Rs.2.5 lakhs but limited the claim to Rs.2 lakhs. They claimed Rs.1,000/- for treatment charges, Rs.1,000/- for transport charges, Rs.200/- to damage to clothing, Rs.4,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium for the widow and for loss of love and affection for the other petitioners and in particular the minor children, and Rs.2 lakhs for loss of support (dependency). According to them, Alexander who was 40 years old was earning Rs.1,450/- per month and spending Rs.900/- for their up keep.

4. The first respondent (rw-1) resisted the claim. He denied that he is registered owner of the car, but claimed that he sold it to Smt. M.K. Bhavani (RW-2) on 7-5-1986, that she in turn sold it to Aboobacker (RW-4) who exchanged it for another car of George Mathew (brother of Rw-5 ) and subsequently George Mathew exchanged the car for another car of Roy Thomas who was therefore the real owner of the car on the date of the accident. He also contended that second respondent was not his employee. He disclaimed his liability-and contended that if at all only respondents 2 and 3 were liable.

5. The second respondent denied that he drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. According to him, a cyclist coming from the opposite direction suddenly swerved to the middle of the road and to avoid the cyclist he applied brake as a result of which the car skidded, turned round and Alexander was thrown out. He also pointed out that the first respondent is the registered owner of the car and third respondent is the insurer and the policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. According to him the income of Alexander was only Rs.500/- per month.

6. The third respondent contended that policy was only an Act policy and did not cover risk to passengers in the car and that Alexander being a gratuitious passenger in a private car the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. The claim was also characterised as excessive.

7. The Tribunal arrived at the following conclusions: The accident was on account of rash and' negligent driver of the of the car by the second respondent while proceeding from south to north in an attempt to overtake a lorry which was ahead, went to the right side of the road and hit against the wall on the eastern side.. The case of a cyclist coming suddenly from the opposite direction and swerving to the middle of the road was not proved. The various transfers of the car alleged by the first respondent were proved