JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2016 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 204 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge, Villupuram and enhance the award amount.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 204 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge, Villupuram in and by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2016, by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the award amount.

2. The claimants, wife and parents of the deceased one Mr. Masilamani, who died in a road accident on 30.10.2014, moved the tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The second respondent/ insurer filed a counter and objected to the claim.

3. It is not the case of the Insurer/second respondent that the Insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants for the death of Mr. Masilamani. However, they have not admitted various claims made by the claimants with regard to the income and other claims made under various heads and put the claimants to strict proof of the claim before the Tribunal. The wife of the deceased Masilamani, the first claimant/first appellant herein was examined as PW-1 and one Mr. Kumaraswamy was examined as PW-2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked on the side of the claimants/appellants. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record before it came to the conclusion that the deceased was a pillion rider and interpreting the terms of the Insurance Policy dated 10.05.2014, Ex.P8, held that even though the Insurer is liable to compensate the claimants, their liability would stand restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- alone.

4. In this context Ex.P8 Policy is considered and it is found that optional PA cover for ‘pillion rider’ has been paid. However, the Tribunal has erroneously interpreted the ‘limit of liability’ clause to disallow the claim exceeding Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court finds that the policy, Ex.P8 contains a ‘limit of liability’ clause, which is extracted hereunder for better appreciation:

“LIMIT OF LIABILITY: Limit of the amount of the Company’s liability under the Section II-I(i) in respect of any one accident as per M.V. Act 1988. Limit of the amount of the Company’s liability under Section II-I (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of the event: Upto Rs.1,00,000/-.”

5. The interpretation of the Tribunal that the ‘limit of liability’ would extend to a pillion rider is erroneous and without any substance. This ‘limit of liability’ would apply to the owner of the vehicle/insured and cannot be extended to a pillion rider, disentitling the pillion rider from claiming compensation or his/her heirs from claiming compensation in the event of a fatal accident. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that separate premium has been paid for “pillion rider” and that the policy being a comprehensive policy, a third party cannot be denied compensation. Restricting liability of the insurer to Rs.1,00,000/- in so far as the pillion rider is concerned is erroneous. The Tribunal placed reliance on various decisions of Courts to disallow the claim, in excess of Rs.1,00,000/- without noticing that the ratio laid down in those cases were clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case. In fact, the Division Bench of this case in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. vs. A. Meenakshi and Others, 2009 (1) TNMAC 249 (DB) held that even a gratuitous passenger is entitled to claim compensation for injuries when the policy is a comprehensive policy. The Division Bench in the said case discussed the entire history relating to third party claims and finally laid down the ratio that even a gratuitous passenger woul