The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance liability and the applicability of personal accident cover (PAC) under the comprehensive/package policy in the context of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle's Act.

Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, J.

The present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988 (for short "MVA"), is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2015 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT") East Sikkim, Gangtok.

2. The indisputable facts leading to filing of the instant appeal are that one Mr. Yogesh Rai, aged about 25 years, working in the Indian Air Force as a Airman, while driving a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. DL-3SCA-8971, owned by him, met with an accident on 01.06.2014. It is stated that one Sishir Rai was also riding pillion, when the accident took place at Mandi House, Gole Chakker, New Delhi at about 4.30 pm. Mr. Yogesh Rai, sustained head injuries and succumbed to it, later in the day.

3. The claimants (the respondents herein,) parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MVA, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,99,444/- (Rupees sixty lakhs ninety nine thousand, four hundred forty four) only.

4. The Learned Member, MACT, East Sikkim at Gangtok, by the impugned award determined the total compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,33,958/- (Rupees forty five lakhs thirty three thousand nine hundred fifty eight) only. However, having regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased, the above amount was slashed to the extent of 50% which comes to Rs. 22,66,979/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs sixty six thousand nine hundred seventy nine) only and it was directed to be paid, accordingly.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/Insurance Company has come up with the instant appeal, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the claim of the petitioner cannot be more than the liability of the Insurance Company as limited to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), specifically provided in the policy itself.

6. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company would contend that deceased was insured/owner of the vehicle and as such the claimants, being legal heirs, are not entitled to any claim under provisions of Section 165 of MVA. Thus, the awarded compensation deserves to be set aside. It is further urged, that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle and as such his legal heirs are not entitled to any relief under provisions of Section 166 of MVA. The principle of multiplier on the basis of the age of deceased was wrongly applied, when legal heirs are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was a bachelor and the age of the deceased's mother is 42 years and as such on the basis of the age of the parents only, multiplier can be applied. The Learned Counsel would further contend that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured in respect of a third party. In the case on hand, the insured himself was the owner and driving the Motor Cycle. It is also contended that the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and Another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 is applicable in case of gratuitous occupant of the vehicle in case of "comprehensive/package policy". The deceased cannot be held an occupant of the vehicle. The policy provided for personal accident cover (PAC), on the basis of payment of premium, fixing the liability to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, as above submitted.

7. Opposing the submission of the appellant, Mr. N. Rai, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents/claimants would contend, in support of the impugned award, submitting that the policy being package policy, the driver is equally entitled to the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3056, and a decision of this Court in The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Gangtok v. Smt. Jasu Subba & Ors., AIR 2011 Sikkim 37, Mr. Ra