An insurer is liable to satisfy a compensation award if it fails to produce the insurance policy as evidence to prove it is a 'liability only' policy, regardless of the pillion rider's status, with the right to recover the amount from the insured owner.

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : No.

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

The appellant in this case is Sri Saiman Mahilary, who is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and he has prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents in this case are the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sri Kanaj Kumar Brahma, who was the owner of the offending vehicle and Sri Jwngsar Basumatary, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and are arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 4 respectively.

It is submitted that the appellant has spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) as medical expenses but a lesser amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that the Insurer did not adduce proper evidence. It is also contended that the Tribunal has ignored that the driver was holding a valid driving license.

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2015 of the learned Trial Court passed in MAC Case No. 64/2014.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company laid stress in their argument that the policy of the offending vehicle was Act only policy and thus, the owner is liable to pay. It is submitted that this judgment was correctly passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has prayed to dismiss this appeal as this appeal is devoid of merits.

The genesis of the case was that on 06.11.2013 at about 10:00 PM, when the claimant along with Jwngsar Basumatary was proceeding on the way from a mela in a motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/L-8380, suddenly a street dog came in front of their motorcycle and the respondent No. 4 Jwngsar Basumatary lost control and they met with an accident. The claimant was a pillion rider and he sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was admitted to MRM Hospital, Kokrajhar and thereafter, he was referred to Lower Assam Hospital and Research Centre, Bongaigaon. He had to undergo three major brain operations and fortunately, he recovered after his prolonged treatment.

It was held by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company and the policy No. 1306053113P103799673 was valid at the time of the accident as it was valid from 20.09.2013 upto 19.09.2014. The claimant as PW-1, to substantiate his evidence, exhibited Form-54, MVI report and medical documents etc. He has also stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and this fact although disputed by the respondents had remained uncontroverted.

The learned Tribunal has observed that the witness Krishna Chouhan (PW-2) has substantiated the evidence of the claimant as he was an eye witness. It was held by the Tribunal that the expenses were Rs.2,65,688/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Eight) and the claimant was an indoor patient from 07.11.2013 upto 21.11.2013 at Hayat Hospital, Guwahati. His injuries were diagnosed as head injury, brain contusion B/L, right tempero-parietal EDH/SDH with calvarial fracture.

After assessing the loss of income for three months, and after considering the notional income as the income of the claimant, the claimant was awarded Rs.3,24,688/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Eight).

It was held that the policy was a “liability policy” and therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 626, the owner of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the compensation.

Heard learned counsel Mr. I.A. Talukdar for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. K.K. Bhatta for the respondents.

Now, the point for determination is that whether the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding insufficient compen