The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company under the 'Act' policy, the coverage of occupants of the vehicle, and the assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

Shri S. N. Gajendragadkar, Counsel for the appellant.

Smt. Meena Singhal, Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

Shri T. C. Narwariya, Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

This miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 4-12-2009 passed by 13th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 44/2009 by which an amount of Rs. 1,53,700/- has been awarded against the appellant as well as the respondents No. 2 and 3 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and it has been directed that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the FDR of any Nationalized Bank and the remaining amount be paid to the claimant by account payee cheque. It has also been directed that if any interim amount has been paid, then the same shall be adjusted in the final compensation amount and the appellant has also been held liable to make payment of compensation amount.

2. Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been wrongly held liable for making payment of the compensation amount. The appellant being Insurance Company had no independent contract and unless and until the owner of the offending vehicle is held liable, the appellant cannot be directed to indemnify the insured and to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. It is further submitted that in the FIR which was lodged by one Vinod Jain, it was specifically mentioned that he and the injured were sitting in the offending vehicle after making payment of fare whereas the witnesses have taken a somersault before the Claims Tribunal and since the offending vehicle was registered as a private vehicle, therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner and driver. It is further submitted that since the policy in question was the Act policy, therefore, even the gratuitous passengers sitting in the offending vehicle are not covered under the policy and even if it is held that the appellant was liable to indemnify the owner, then the maximum liability of the appellant was only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the “Act” policy is compulsory under the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the “Act” Policy is also known as “A” policy whereas “B” policy is a comprehensive policy or a package policy and, therefore, it is submitted that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the appellant is responsible for making payment of the compensation amount. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the cross-objection filed by the claimant is not maintainable for the simple reason that a cross-objection against the co-respondent is not maintainable. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Panna Lal vs. State of Bombay and ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1516 as well as the judgments passed by the High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Soneram and ors., reported in 2010 ACJ 2680, in the case of Smt. Shazadi Begum vs. Vinod Kumar and anr., reported in AIR 1978 M. P. 20 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Dwarika Prasad Agarwal and ors., reported in 1996 JLJ 589. With regard to the liability of the Insurance Company in case of “Act’ policy, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and anr., reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surendra Nath Loomba and ors., reported in 2013 ACJ 231.

3. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the claimant/respondent No. 1 that merely because the claimant is a co-respondent in the present appeal would not mean that now his status is that of a defendant. The