The insurance company is liable for compensation up to the policy limits per passenger, despite policy violations, following established case law principles.

JUDGMENT

All these appeals arose from the impugned award dated 17.06.2013 in OP(MV) Nos. 571 of 2010 and 161 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala.

2. The appellant in MACA No. 1097 of 2014 is the claimant in OP(MV) No.161 of 2011 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”); and the appellant in MACA No. 1617 of 2014 is the first claimant in OP(MV) No.571 of 2010 filed under Section 166 of the Act. They have come in appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

3. The appellant in MACA Nos. 1994 of 2013 and 167 of 2014 is the insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. The insurer has come up in appeal challenging the impugned award, whereby they are directed to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is also alleged that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive.

4. Since the appeals arose from the very same accident, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

5. The case of the claimants is that on 11.12.2009, while the deceased in both claim petitions were pillion riders on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-36/A-4429, proceeding through Kottayam– Ettumanoor public road, ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the first respondent lost control of the motorcycle, resulting in the vehicle hitting a telephone post. Consequently, both pillion riders were thrown onto the road and sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal by filing OP(MV) Nos. 161 of 2011 and 571 of 2010, claiming a total compensation of ₹6,00,000/- and ₹8,00,000/- respectively.

6. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle, appeared before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It is further contended that there was policy violation on the ground that the motorcycle was overloaded with two pillion riders and the first respondent/rider had no valid licence at the time of the accident. Exts.A1 to A11, B1 & B2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the rider of the offending motorcycle and awarded a sum of ₹4,36,500/- and ₹4,26,000/- to the claimants in OP(MV) Nos.161 of 2011 and 571 of 2010 respectively as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer with right of recovery against the first respondent/owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle. Further, a penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded in default of payment as above. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants as well as the insurer have come up in appeal.

7. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, the learned counsel for the claimant in OP(MV) No.161 of 2011 and the learned counsel for the claimants in OP(MV) No.571 of 2010.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the motorcycle was overloaded with two pillion riders and further, there was no valid driving licence for the rider of the motorcycle. According to the learned Standing Counsel, since the motorcycle was overloaded and the seating capacity of the motorcycle is only for the rider and a pillion rid