JUDGMENT

The appellant was the third respondent in OP(MV)

761/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The first respondent was the claimant and respondents 2 and 3 were the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, contending that on 4.9.2002 while he was riding pillion on motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-13F/5528 ridden by the second respondent, the second respondent took a rash and negligent turn on the public road near a Garment Shop at Perumba and as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. He was treated at the Payyannur Nursing Home as an inpatient till 21.10.2002. He had to undergone a surgery. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the second respondent. The first respondent is the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the motor cycle. The respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, which he quantified at Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent remained absent and was set ex parte. Though the second respondent entered appearance through counsel, no written statement was filed.

4. The third respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement, contending that the motor cycle was insured with the third respondent at the time of accident. The allegation that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent riding by the second respondent was false. The second respondent rode the motor cycle in strict adherence to the traffic rules. It was only because the petitioner jumped down from the motor cycle that the accident occurred. The amounts claimed in the claim petition are highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the clam petition be dismissed.

5. The petitioner and a witness was examined as PWs

1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A8 were marked through them. The third respondent produced Ext B1 - a copy of the insurance policy in evidence. Ext X1 – disability certificate - was marked as a Court Exhibit.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned judgment allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the third respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,24,300/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the third respondent – Insurance Company – is in appeal.

8. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/third respondent and Sri.Amaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to Sections 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and contended that under a ‘Limited Liability Policy, unless additional premium is paid, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to person(s) falling outside the purview of Section 147 of the Act. According to him, in the present case, Exhibit B-1 is a ‘Limited Liability Policy’ and no additional premium was paid to cover the pillion rider on the motor cycle. Therefore, the impugned award is patently erroneous. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Asha Rani and others [2003 (2) SCC 223] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others [2006 (4) SCC 404] to fortify his contentions. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated.

10. Per contra, Sri.Amaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that there is no pleadings or material on record to substantiate that Ext B1 is an 'Act Policy'. The Tribunal has correctly followed the law and passed the impugned award