(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) is directed against the award dated 12. 04. 2008 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 608 of 2001 whereby the original claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,500/- with interest and cost, and the insurer was held not to be liable to pay any amount.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case were that deceased Sureshsbhai sustained serious injuries on various parts of his body while going as a pillion rider on 05. 04. 2001 at about 12. 30 p. m. The accident was attributed to the fact that the person driving the motorcycle on the road from Chhotaudepur to Kanwat lost control when, at a turning point near Dungar village, a truck came from opposite side and the driver had to suddenly apply brake. Deceased breathed his last on the next day after being transferred to hospital. He was aged 35, serving at a company and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, at the time of his death. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lakh by filing an application under section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal believed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,500/- per month holding the income certificate to be inconclusive and, applying multiplier of 15, calculated Rs. 1,80,000/- as the loss of dependency benefit; and adding thereto Rs. 7,500/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- for loss to the estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, total compensation of Rs. 1,97,500/- was awarded. Accepting the arguments of the insurer that risk of pillion rider was not covered by the policy of insurance and relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2001 ACJ 1], the Tribunal held the insurer to be not liable to pay compensation to the insured.
(3.) IT was argued by learned counsel Mr. MTM Hakim, appearing for the appellants, that the Tribunal had failed to peruse the insurance policy wherein the insured had paid extra premium for Endorsement IMT 64 so as to cover the risk of pillion rider and seating capacity of two persons was also clearly mentioned in the policy. It was submitted that it was a comprehensive policy and covered the risk of vehicle as well as the persons carried on the vehicle. The assessment of amount of compensation was also assailed as perverse.