The main legal point established in the judgment is the unlimited liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which includes coverage for pillion riders.

R. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) A police constable riding as a pillion rider lost his right leg in an accident between a scooter and jeep. He had filed a claim petition before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City (for short the Tribunal ). However, vide judgment dated 26. 5. 1995, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, challenging the said order, he had filed a writ petition. Vide judgment dated 6. 10. 98, the Honble High Court partly allowed the writ petition. As both the petitioners and insurance company were equally aggrieved by the judgment dated 6. 10. 1998, therefore, cross-appeals have been filed by both the parties before us. Since cross-appeal arises out of the same impugned judgment, therefore, both appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) ON 22. 4. 1991, while Bashir was driving a scooter, petitioner, Mahendra Singh, was riding as the pillion rider. Allegedly bashir was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Around 7. 30 p. m. , the said scooter met with a head-on collision with a jeep. Resultantly, the petitioner had to undergo the amputation below knee of his right leg. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal wherein he claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,86,000. In its written statement, the insurance company contended that firstly Bashir did not have a valid licence. Secondly, although the driver of the jeep, owner of the jeep and the insurance company were named in the claim petition, but no relief has been asked against them. Thirdly, most importantly they contended that the claimant was riding the scooter as a pillion passenger. Therefore, the company is not liable for paying any compensation to the claimant.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal held that firstly the claimant has not been able to prove that accident was caused because of negligence and rashness by Bashir. Secondly, since the claimant was riding the scooter as a pillion rider, therefore, the insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation. Hence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

( 4 ) AFTER discussing the oral evidence on record, the learned single Judge concluded that ample evidence does exist to prove that accident had occurred because of the composite negligence of the jeep and the scooter drivers. He further held that it is the discretion of the claimant to claim the compensation either from the scooter driver or the jeep driver, owner and the insurance company. Most importantly, the learned single Judge concluded that the use of the expression any person in the insurance policy would obviously include the pillion rider. Therefore, according to the learned single Judge the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. Consequently, the learned single Judge awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner and also directed that interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment shall be paid to the petitioner.

( 5 ) AS stated above, the judgment of the learned single Judge has been challenged both by the claimant and the insurance company.

( 6 ) MR. Virendra Agrawal, the learned counsel for the claimant, has urged that the compensation ordered to be paid to the claimant is on the lower side. According to him, the compensation, in fact, should be Rs. 4,00,000 instead of Rs. 1,50,000. In order to support his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the Honble supreme Court in the case of Grifan v. Sarbjeet Singh, 2000 ACJ 1370 (SC ).

( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. J. K. Singhi, appearing on behalf of the insurance company, has vehemently argued that firstly since the claimant was riding as a pillion rider, therefore, the company is not liable for any compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth to be referred to as the old Motor Vehicles Act ). Secondly, that even if the company was liable, then under the old Motor Vehi