The insurance policy covers the personal risk of the unnamed pillion rider, and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the petitioners.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award and decree dated 22.01.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.2979 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Chief Judge of Small Causes Court), Chennai.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

On 23.04.2006 at about 8.15 a.m., the (deceased) Laila was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 55 L 7939, along with one Muthu, who was the rider, and were proceeding from Ambattur to Kolathur along the Red hills Road and when they were near Sri Lakshmi Agencies Petrol Bunk, the rider of the motor cycle rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the quarry lying on the Road, resulting in the pillion rider being thrown out from the motor cycle. As a result of this accident, the pillion rider sustained fatal injuries and died. Hence, the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased Laila have filed a claim for Rs.5 Lakhs against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 55 L 7939.

3. The 2nd respondent, Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed a counter stating that the deceased was a pillion rider the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 55 L 7939 and was a gratitious passenger in the 1st respondent's vehicle. Therefore, the deceased cannot be deemed as a 'third party' and as such the above claim petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It was also stated that the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 55 L 7939 had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was also stated that the petitioner should prove the age,avocation,income, place, date and time of the accident through documentary evidence and further prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was also stated that the policy of insurance does not envisage any cover in respect of a pillion rider of the motor cycle unless and until extra premium is paid for the coverage of the pillion rider.

4. On the averments of both the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in this case, namely -

a. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle ?

b. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 ?

c. To what other relief ?

5. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4, namely copy of F.I.R., copy of motor vehicles report, copy of postmortem certificate and legal heir certificate. On the side of the respondent one witness was examined as RW1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1. Copy of insurance policy and India Motor Tariff.

6. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R., it is seen that the Criminal Case has been registered against the rider of the motor cycle, on the basis of a complaint given by one Gopi. The manner of accident as narrated in the F.I.R., is corroborated by PW2, eye witness, to the extent that the accident occurred when the motor cyclist hit against the quarry lying on the road. The Tribunal, on considering that the accident happened at 8.15 a.m., were inclined to hold that had the rider of the motor cycle been cautious, he could have noticed the quarry lying on the road and could have avoided hitting against the same and could have avoided the accident. Hence, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle.

7. From a scrutiny of Ex.R1, the insurance policy, it is seen that the policy issued is a package policy and a sum of Rs.160 is collected as premium on the basis of 3rd party liability from the insured. It is also seen that the liability to 3rd parties covers the death or bodily injury to any occupant in the insured vehicle for hire or reward. Though the 2nd respondent has raised the questions on their liability to indemnify the petitioners on behalf of the 1st respondent mainly