The court established that a comprehensive insurance policy covers pillion riders and clarified the methods for calculating compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 10th day of July, 2020

The petitioners in OP(MV) No.934/2002 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda are in appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , aggrieved by Award dated 15.03.2008.

2. An accident occurred on 16.04.2002 at Kandarampady on the North Paravur – Varapuzha public road, involving motorcycle No.KL-08S-7859. The appellants are lelgal heirs of the pillion rider of the motorcycle. The pillion rider died in the accident. The rider of the motorcycle filed OP(MV) No.932/2002 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . The appellants-legal heirs of the pillion rider, filed OP(MV) No.934/2002 under Section 166 of the Act.

3. The insurance company alone contested the claim. The other respondents remained ex parte. The insurance company alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner in OP(MV) No.932/2002 himself, who was the rider of the motorcycle.

4. The appellants produced Exts.A1 to A8 and the insurance company produced Ext.B1 copy of insurance policy. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal granted a compensation of ₹1,54,700/- to the appellants with interest in OP(MV) No.934/2002 under the following heads:-

1 Dependency compensation for first three years ₹48,000/- 2 Dependency compensation for next eight years ₹64,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection ₹10,000/- 4 Funeral expenses ₹4,000/- 5 Pain and suffering ₹7,000/- 6 Medical expenses ₹17,700/- Total ₹1,50,700/-

In fact, there occurred an arithmetical error in the Award inasmuch as the total of the compensation ordered by the Tribunal under various heads, would come to only ₹1,50,700/- as against the figure ₹1,54,700/- given in the Award.

5. Though the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable in OP(MV).No932/2002 as ₹91,700/-, the Tribunal held that since the petitioner therein was responsible for the accident, he cannot be granted compensation. As there was no permanent disability caused on the petitioner, his claim under Section 163A also is not maintainable. Consequently, OP(MV).932/2002 was dismissed.

6. As regards OP(MV) No.934/2002 from which this MACA arises, the Tribunal found that the definite case of the insurance company is that the policy issued by the company does not cover the risk of rider or pillion riders. The Tribunal held that gratuitous passengers having a motorcycle can get coverage only if an extended policy is obtained by the owner by paying additional amount of premium. Consequently, the appellants were allowed to realise the compensation of ₹1,54,700/- from respondents 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition.

7. Aggrieved by the meager amount of compensation awarded and also aggrieved by absolving the insurer from liability, the appellants are before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the policy in question is not a Act only Policy. It was, in fact, a package policy/comprehensive policy. As regards the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at ₹2,000/-, the counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal was legally bound to fix the monthly income as ₹5,000/-. Similarly, instead of taking the multiplier 18 on the basis of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted split multipliers which is illegal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the Tribunal omitted to consider future prospects of the deceased while computing compensation for death. The amount of ₹10,000/- awarded for love and affection is too meager. Compensation for funeral expenses ₹4,000/- granted by the Tribunal is not anywhere near the standardised rate. The amount of ₹7,000/- granted towards pain and suffering also requires upward revision. The Tribunal did not grant any amount towards transportation expenses, damage to clothes and loss of estate. In