An act only policy under the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover the risk of a pillion rider, and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for injuries sustained by a pillion rider.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order of the learned Tribunal of MACT cum District Court, Karur made in M.C.O.P.No.824 of 2018 dated 12.03.2020.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree on certain counts passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur, in M.C.O.P.No.824 of 2018 dated 12.03.2020 by the appellant/2nd respondent/insurance company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.824 of 2018.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Claim Petition is as follows:-

This is a fatal case. The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased Pitchai. On 01.10.2018, at about 01.30 p.m., the deceased Pitchai as a pillion rider accompanied Sundararjan, the rider who was driving the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-48-AX-9533. While the said two wheeler reached south Gandhigramam Vijayakothandaraman's house and proceeded towards northern Gandhigramam main road and thereafter, turned along the east -west mud road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider Sundararajan, the said vehicle unexpectedly skid and fell down and as the result of which, the said Pitchai sustained injuries all over the body and while proceeding towards Karur Government hospital, he died on the way and thereafter, post morterm was conducted in Government Hospital, Karur. Seeking a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, the petitioners have filed the claim petition.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-48-AX-9533 and the second respondent is the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. The second respondent has filed a counter refuting each and every allegations set forth in the claim petition. It was pleaded in the said counter that the first respondent had availed act only policy for the two wheeler involved in the accident, which would not cover the pillion rider. The act only policy is meant for third party risks, which means the insurance company would be liable to pay for the damages, death or bodily injuries of the third parties alone. Since the first respondent having availed act only policy, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners since there is no contract between the first respondent and the second respondent for the risks of pillion rider. The second respondent has to be absolved from the liability.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed three issues. Two witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the petitioners and 8 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. One witness R.W.1 was examined on the side of the respondents and five documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. The 1st respondent was called absent and set exparte. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of the arguments submitted by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to conclude that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler by the first respondent.

6. An authorized official of the second respondent insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and he deposed in his evidence that the first respondent had availed act only policy and since the deceased travelled as a pillion rider, he will not be automatically covered by the insurance policy. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. That apart, the insurance policy, legal notice and postal acknowledgement card were marked as Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 through R.W.1. A perusal of the insurance policy Ex.R5 would show that it is only an act only policy standing in the name of the first respondent. However, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and other v. Rajesh Kr.Singh and others reported in 2017(1) TNMAC 289(SC) and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Division Manag