The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer under the act policy and the assessment of compensation based on the nature of injuries and expenses incurred by the petitioner.

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.04.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.727 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,00,400/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed the above appeal to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner took a lift in a Bullet motor bike bearing registration No.KBV 2102 coming from Omalur to Salem. While the Bullet motor bike driven by one Syril Thomas. The said motor bike was nearing Salem nearing KurunguchavadiShandhi at about 8.45 p.m. the driver of the said motor bike was driven in a rash and negligent manner by Syril Thomas and dashed against another motor bike, coming in the opposite direction, bearing registration No.TN27 F0125, due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained multiple fractures on his right leg itself. Immediately, he was admitted in Gokulam Hospital for treatment as an inpatient. After the said accident, he is unable to walk to attend his normal duties. The petitioner running a Printing Press and employing four workmen in his Press. Besides the petitioner is running a fortnight magazine called ADD POST and also doing Screen Printing jobs. As such, the petitioner is earning a total sum of Rs.13,000/- per month.

4. The said accident was registered by Traffic Investigation Wing, Sooramangalam Police Station, as Crime No.74/1999 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C.

5. The second respondent filed a Counter and resisted the claim of the petitioner. The respondent stated that the accident was not due to any rash and negligent driving of the respondents driver. Actually, Suresh Babu came on the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN27 F0125 on the wrong side rashly and negligently and dashed against the respondents vehicle. The petitioners claim is only against the rider of TVS Suzuki bearing registration No.TN27 F0125, Suresh Babu. The petitioner should add Suresh Babu and the Insurance Company as necessary party to this claim petition. But, without adducing them in the claim petition is not maintainable. The first respondent has taken only act policy with this respondent/The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., As per act policy there is no coverage for pillion rider. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the first respondent did not possess a valid licence to drive the motorcycle, hence the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It is a violation of policy condition, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner. The claimant did not suffer any injury in the said accident. Further, it is not true that the petitioner suffered fracture of leg. There is no proof that the earnings of the petitioner is Rs.13,000/-.

6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Did the first respondent driver ride the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident in which, the petitioner sustained injuries?

(ii) What is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner?

7. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and he adduced evidence before the Tribunal that on 09.02.1999, at about 8.45 p.m. he was waiting for boarding a bus to go to Salem, when the first respondent rode his two wheeler and while he was crossing him, the petitioner had requested a lift from him in order to go to Salem. The first respondent also obliged him with a lift and the petitioner came with him as a pillion rider. While both travelling on the bike, the first respondent had driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent mann