ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PURUSHOTHAM T M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIENTAL insurance Co. Ltd. is the appellant in this appeal. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the judgment and award dated 21. 4. 2005 made in M. V. C. No. 3696 of 2004 by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')

(2.) FACTS in brief: one Nagendra, while travelling in a private car bearing registration No. MET 9341 in front of Srinivasa Saw Mill on m. C. Road near Shivapura, Maddur at about 5 a. m. on 23. 12. 2003 met with an accident and as a result of the said accident he died on the spot. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') are the father and mother respectively of the said Nagendra. Claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming for award of compensation of rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakh only ). The claim made by the claimants was resisted by appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company') on various grounds. Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record had found that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. MET 9341 by its driver, in which the deceased Nagendra was travelling. In the light of the said conclusion the claims Tribunal, on the basis of the material on record, made an award awarding a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 (rupees six lakh fifty thousand only) by way of compensation to the claimants.

(3.) IN this appeal, Mr. Poonacha, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, while fairly did not challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal but strongly urged that the deceased being an occupant in a private car, the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in fastening the liability on the insurance company. According to learned counsel that in the absence of additional premium having been paid to the insurance company to cover the risk of the passengers, the insurance company could not have been made liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. In other words, it is his submission that the risk of an occupant/passenger in a private car is not compulsorily required to be covered under section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and there being no additional premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the occupants, the insurance company could not have been made liable to pay compensation to the claimants, by the Tribunal. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum, 2003 ACJ 1992 (Karnataka) and also the unreported decision of this court rendered in the case of Veerappa v. Sarmuddin, m. F. A. No. 2209 of 1995; decided on 26. 5. 1997.