JUDGMENT

(Heard Video Conference)

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in MCOP No.1212 of 2006.

2. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award questioning its liability to pay the compensation to the first respondent / claimant on the ground that the first respondent / claimant is himself the insured and not a third party. In the case on hand, the first respondent / claimant was a pillion rider in a motor cycle driven by his brother and the motor cycle dashed against an unknown vehicle and as a result of the said accident, the first respondent / claimant has sustained injuries. He preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.1212 of 2006.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has held the appellant /

Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation and has assessed the compensation for the injuries sustained by the first respondent / claimant at Rs.1,81,800/- together with interest and costs, as detailed below :-

4. Heard Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant /

Insurance Company and Mr.T.Sundaranathan, learned counsel for the first respondent / claimant. Despite service of notice on the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance on his side.

5. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.

6. In the counter statement filed by the appellant / Insurance Company before the Tribunal, they have taken a specific stand that they are not liable to compensate the first respondent / claimant as he is not a third party as he himself is the insured.

7. Paragraph No.3 of the counter statement reads as follows :

The respondent submits that by traversing through the claim petition, it is understood that the petitioner\insured has traveled in his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration number TN-22-AH-5431 at the time of accident. This fact has also been admitted by the Petitioner in Col.19 of the claim petition. Therefore, the petitioner herein is a gratuitous passenger who is not required to be covered under Sec.147 of the M.V.ACT. Further, the policy issued by this respondent also does not cover such risks.

(a) There are only two kinds of policies viz., (1) Liability only policy (2) Package policy.

It is submitted that the Liability only policy is a policy, which covers Third Party Liability for bodily injury and /or death and property damage. Further there is also personal accident cover (PA)

for owner-driver for a capital sum insured (CSI).

It is submitted that the Package policy covers all the aspects of Liability only policy. In addition to the above, this policy also covers loss or own damage (O.D) to the vehicle insured. The premium is collected under this head to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against any damage that may be caused to the vehicle either due to accident or due to natural calamities specified in the policy and also for loss in the nature of theft.

(b) It is submitted that the policy issued to the owner\petitioner of the Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration number TN-22-AH-

5431 covers two kinds of risks and the same are as follows:

1) Own Damage

2)Liability only policy risk.

(c) It is submitted that the premium collected covers own damage (O.D) cover, towards TP liability cover and towards PA cover for owner-driver. It is pertinent to point out that the premium collected towards TP liability risk in the package policy and Liability only policy is the same. Hence the risks covered towards third party liability remains the same under both the policies. Therefore the position of the insurance company in covering the ri