The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car when the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy.

JUDGMENT:

T. Amarnath Goud, J.

1. Since these three appeals involve common question of law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 282 & 714 of 2018:

2. Both these appeals arise out of an Award passed in M.V.O.P. No. 292 of 2011, dated 25-09-2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, the Tribunal). The appellants/claimants filed MACMA. No. 282 of 2018 on the ground that the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 14,21,000/- against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of Thakur Ashwan Singh, in a motor accident, while the insurance company filed MACMA. No. 714 of 2018, on the ground that the deceased is not a third party and hence, it has no liability to pay the compensation.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in both the appeals are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in M.A.C.M.A. No. 282 of 2018.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on appellant No. 1 is the mother, appellant No. 2 is the brother and respondent No. 1 is the father of the deceased, Thakur Ashwan Singh. The deceased was working as Assistant Cook in Ocean Liner Cruise and earning 688 US $ per month i.e., Rs. 31,000/- per month. The deceased had come to India to visit his family and friends. On the intervening night of 26/27.07.2010, while he was travelling in one of his friends car, and when they reached flyover- at Khairatabad, the driver of the car lost control over it and collided with a street light pole, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The appellants filed the aforesaid MVOP against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner and insurer of the aforesaid car, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

MACMA. No. 1871 of 2018:

5. This appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.09.2017 passed in O.P. No. 963 of 2014 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad on the ground that the deceased is not a third party and hence, it has no liability to pay the compensation.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on respondent No. 1 is the wife, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are children, respondent No. 5 is the mother and respondent No. 6 is the father of the deceased, G. Venkatesham. On 14.10.2013, the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. AP28DQ 6901. At about 19.00 hours, when he reached near Professor Ramreddy Engineering College, Nandigama Village, it was raining and at the same time, one lorry came from back side and one lorry came from opposite' direction with heavy focus head lights, for which, the deceased to avoid accident, took his bike towards the left side of the road and hit a tree and fell down on the road. In the said accident, he received bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein filed the aforesaid OP against owner of motorcycle (respondent No. 6 herein) and the insurer of motorcycle (appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

7. Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in MACMA. No. 282 of 2018 and Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in MACMA. No. 1871 of 2018, submitted that where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor 'Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two wheeler or the occupants in private car. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that respondent No.2-insurnace company is liable to pay compensation to, the claimants. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 32,000/- per month, instead of Rs. 8,000/- per month and sought to enhance the compensation. In support of their arguments, they relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou