IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an insurance policy specific to third party risk and the owner/driver does not obligate the insurance company to pay compensation to a pillion rider in the event of an accident.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), lays challenge to award dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned MACT-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 130-MAC/2 of 2019, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition, held the respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,90,000/-, alongwith 7.5 percent interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that claimants instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 lac on account of death of Rajan Kumar, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent No.2 and son of respondent No.3. On 22.4.2019, deceased Rajan Kumar, while travelling as pillion rider on Motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-71-4409, driven by respondent No.4 met with an accident, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple and grievous injuries. Though he was taken to Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, for treatment, but unfortunately, succumbed to injuries and died.

3. Claimants claimed that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.4, who was allegedly intoxicated and driving at a high speed. Claimants claimed that deceased was 38 years old and at that time, was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, being a skilled painter. Claimants claimed that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and they being dependant deserve to be paid compensation.

4. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted by respondent No.4 and appellant-Insurance Company, who though by way of filing separate reply, admitted factum with regard to accident, but denied the rash and negligent driving if any, of respondent No.4. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and as such, is not liable to indemnify the insured.

5. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of evidence as well as pleadings adduced on record held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,90,000/-. Though major liability to the tune of Rs. 13,90,000/- came to be fastened upon owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.4, but since learned Tribunal below also held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac alongwith costs of the petition to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, it has approached this Court in the instant appeal on the ground that as per policy taken by the ensured, appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay for pillion rider because same was Act only policy.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-Insurance Company, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant is that Tribunal below fell in grave error while holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- because as per policy, appellant-Insurance Company was only liable to pay qua the death or injury, if any, caused to the driver of the offending vehicle, that too, to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. While making this Court peruse the insurance policy Ex.RW1/B, Mr. Thakur, vehemently argued that Rs. 720/- was charged as total basic liability premium and sum of Rs. 50/- was charged on account of compulsory PA cover to owner-driver, but no amount of any kind was ever charged for person travelling in the offending vehicle, as a pillion rider. If it is so, there was no occasion, if any, for the Tribunal below to saddle the liability to pay Rs. 1.00 lac. He further submitted that Tribunal below mis-interpreted, the provisions of the insurance policy, because at