P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant mainly being aggrieved of the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability, despite the fact that there was valid policy coverage in respect of the vehicle involved and further that the same was a 'comprehensive policy' covering the risk of the pillion rider as well. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, to the effect that pillion rider is not covered under the policy and hence the challenge. The accident occurred on 12.05.2002, when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the a motor cycle bearing No. KL.7X-6391, who sustained injuries when the motor cycle overturned because of rash and negligent riding by the first respondent/owner. After completing the treatment availed in respect of the injuries, the appellant approached the Tribunal by filing the claim petition.

2. The first respondent, owner-cum-rider did not choose to contest the matter and was set ex parte. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement on general grounds and subsequently, raised additional grounds by way of additional written statement, to the effect that there was no liability for the insurance company to satisfy the claim in so far as no additional premium was collected from the first respondent to cover the pillion rider. The claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A7 from his side. Copy of the policy was marked as Ext. B 1 from the part of the respondents. The Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was only because of negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the motorcycle.

3. The claim of the appellant was that he was running a Cycle shop and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month. But observing that no evidence was adduced to substantiate the facts and figures, only a notional income of Rs. 2000/- was reckoned and calculation was made, computing the amounts under different heads in the light of injuries sustained and consequences resulted. A total compensation of Rs. 93,870/- was ordered to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Observing that there was no valid coverage under the policy, the insurance company was exonerated in the light of the ruling of the Apex Court, reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, and the first respondent was found solely liable and responsible to meet the award amount. This in turn is under challenge in this appeal filed by the claimant.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for both the sides.

5. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier, it was asserted from the part of the appellant that the policy concerned herein was not an 'Act only Policy', so as to treat the pillion rider as a gratuitous passenger and to exclude him from the purview of coverage, but was a 'comprehensive policy' which very much included the risk of the pillion rider as well. Hence it was contended that no reliance could be placed upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others. Reference was also made to the Circular dated 16.11.2009' issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to the effect that the claim, as in the instant case, is liable to be satisfied and honoured by the Insurance Company. It was accordingly, that an order was passed on 28.07.2015 by this Court directing the second respondent/insurer to produce copy of the Circular dated 16.11.2009 issued by the IRDA and also the terms and conditions attached to Ext. B1 policy, to adjudicate the issue in an effective manner. Pursuant to the said direction, a copy of the Circular has been produced by the Insurance Company as Annexure R2(a) an