The court determined that the tribunal's exoneration of the insurer from liability was incorrect, necessitating reconsideration of the policy coverage.

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 28.01.2014 in O.P.(MV) No.438 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.2522 of 2014 is filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas MACA No.1396 of 2016 is filed by the respondent/owner challenging the liability to pay the award amount.

2. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The facts of the case are as follows: On 25.12.2004 at about 10.15 p.m., while the claimant was pillion riding in a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-07/U-5413, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner skidded and capsized on the way at Maruthikavu. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and the owner of the motorcycle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent–insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the coverage did not extend to the pillion rider, who was merely a gratuitous passenger. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A12, Exts.B1 to B3 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹8,94,450/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and the rider. Challenging the liability to pay the award amount, the first respondent/owner and dissatisfied with the award, the claimant has come up in appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, learned counsel for the owner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.

6. The tribunal exonerated the insurance company from liability, finding that the policy issued was only an Act Only policy and that no additional premium had been paid. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the owner of the vehicle submitted that there was no occasion to add any IMT amount and that loading of premium was not required, since no claim had been made by the owner in the previous year as well. The tribunal found that the total amount collected as premium was indicated as ₹509/-, inclusive of service tax, and that the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under Ext. B3 policy. The pillion rider could not be treated as a third party; hence, the tribunal exonerated the insurance company from liability and directed the owner to pay the claim amount.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation as well as challenging the exoneration of the liability of the insurance company, has filed the appeal before this Court. The owner challenging the liability to pay the amount, has also approached this Court by filing the above appeal. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal, finding that no premium was paid for a third party, held that there was no policy coverage for the pillion rider. The learned counsel appearing for the owner as well as the claimant submitted that, though Ext. B3 policy reveals that ‘IMT endorsement numbers are printed as herewith attached hereto’, the policy does not contain any IMT number or attachment along with Ext. B3.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that no additional premium was collected to cover the pillion rider; however, the insuranc