The main legal point established in the judgment is that the risk of pillion rider is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy, and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in such cases.

Ashok Kumar Joshi, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimant mainly against the award dated 2/7/2009 passed by Sixth A.M.A.C.T., Jabalpur in M.V.C. No.126/2006 being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal and also exonerating the insurance company from the liability despite the fact that there was valid policy coverage in respect of the vehicle involved and further that the same was a package policy subsequently renamed as Standard Motor Package Policy covering the risk of pillion rider as well. The tribunal exonerated the insurance company by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.M. and others [(2008) (3) T.A.C. 1] to the effect that pillion rider is not covered under the clause of third party.

2. On the date of accident, i.e. 2/7/2009, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration no. MP20KB3392 driven by respondent no.1 Dayaram, when above mentioned motorcycle collided with an another motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 Dayaram and the appellant sustained injuries in the accident. Appellant got fractures in nasal and jaw bones and after accident, he was taken to medical hospital. In accident, the driver of another motorcycle expired and criminal case was registered at police station Garha against respondent no.1 Dayaram. Respondent no.2 was the owner and respondent no.3 was the insurer of the motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 on the date of incident. Thus, they were liable for payment of compensation to the claimant jointly and severally.

3. Respondent no.1 Dayaram pleaded before the tribunal that the accident had not occurred due to his fault. Present respondent no.2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. Respondent no.3 Insurance Co. pleaded that respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the risk of pillion rider was not covered under the policy, thus insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It was also pleaded that the owner and insurance company of the other motorcycle have not been made party in the claim.

4. The appellant/claimant was examined as P.W-1 and Administrative Officer of respondent no.3, A. Tirke (D.W-1) was examined by the insurance company. Copy of the policy was proved as Ex-D-1 by D.W.-1. The tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Dayaram.

5. Appellant has pleaded that in accident grievous injuries were caused to him and looking to the CT scan report (Ex.P-13), it was found proved by the tribunal that fractures of nasal bone of the appellant was proved, but in absence of medical evidence and disability certificate, appellant's pleading regarding disablement was not found proved; the owner and insurance company of another motorcycle were not the necessary parties, but under the policy the risk of pillion rider was not covered. Thus, looking to the fracture of nasal bone, the tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.12,000/- under the head of treatment, travelling and healthy food and appellant was also awarded Rs. 3,000/- under the head of loss of income for a period of one month. Thus, the tribunal awarded in total a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till realization jointly and severally exonerating insurance co. respondent no.3.

6. Placing reliance on the citations of the cases of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. v. Ashaben Gautambai Bala & others [(2008) (3) T.A.C. 36] and Francis K.T. v. Sabu Augustine and another (2016 ACJ 1074) and circulars dated 16/11/2009 and others issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) it has been argued that under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called comprehensiv