K. BALASUBRAMANIYAM Vs. MOHANA KRISHNAN S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.500/2002 are the appellants herein.

(2.) The case of the petitioners before the court below was that, on 3/10/2001 at about 7.15 p.m., while the son of the first and the second appellants was traveling along the main road on a motor cycle driven by the first respondent, the motor cycle hit against a pedestrian. The son was thrown off and he sustained serious injuries. On the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. He was 23 years old. He was a student of MBA, had good academic background and had planned to appear for Civil Services Examination in 2001. He was appointed as the Business Development Manager of a company and appointment letter was also issued. If the accident had not happened, he would have completed MBA and passed the Civil Services Examination. If he had joined the job, he would have obtained salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Accordingly, appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

(3.) Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed a detailed written statement admitting the insurance of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. They denied the various claims and inter alia, it was also contended that the deceased was traveling in the motor cycle as a gratuitous passenger without payment of any fare or reward. Since he was a gratuitous passenger, as per the policy condition, he was not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company. There was no specific coverage in respect of the risk pertaining to the gratuitous passenger. The policy taken by the first respondent was a statutory policy and not a comprehensive policy. It did not cover the risk of death or bodily injury to any gratuitous passenger. Hence, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation for a gratuitous passenger covered by an Act policy, in which no premium was paid for a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the second respondent has no liability to pay compensation. On the basis of the above pleadings both sides let in oral and documentary evidence. On an evaluation of the oral testimony of PW1s to PW3 and Exts.A1 to A27, RW1 and Exts.B1 to B5, Exts.X1 to X3 marked as third party exhibits, the court below allowed the petition in part, directing the first respondent to pay compensation of Rs.33,60,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.