The comprehensive motor insurance policy covers pillion riders, and compensation awarded must reflect just and reasonable estimates, including future medical needs.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated December 23, 2021 passed by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Court) Tiruppur' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.1736 of 2015, the second respondent therein/insurance company has preferred C.M.A. No.2113 of 2022 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioner therein has preferred Cross Obj. No. 102 of 2022 praying to enhance the compensation.

2. This Common Judgment will now decide both, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE

4. On March 11, 2015, at about 08.00 a.m., the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-41-AL-3233. The said vehicle was ridden in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-05-AE-2784, as a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet, for first aid and thereafter shifted to KMCH Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment. In connection with the said accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.114 of 2015 was registered on the file of the Madathukulam Police Station, Tiruppur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the first respondent. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 29 years and was practising as a Chartered Accountant, earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligence of the first respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the two- wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-41-AL-3233 in which the petitioner was riding pillion. The second respondent is the insurer of the said offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. First respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

6. The second respondent filed a counter statement disputing the manner of the accident and the alleged negligence on the part of the first respondent. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent. Further, the second respondent denied the petition averments and contended that the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of same. On these grounds, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

TRIBUNAL

7. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner namely Mr.Ramasamy was examined as P.W.1; Dr.A.Sivakumar, one of the member of the Medical Board constituted to assess the petitioner's disability, was examined as P.W.2; and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.16 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, first respondent - Vijayakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 and Ex-R.2 were marked. Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex-X.1.

8. The Tribunal, upon a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the offending two-wheeler. The Tribunal further found that the second respondent / insurance company did not dispute the policy coverage and hence, the Tribunal presumed that the policy is a compre