NATARAJAN Vs. D CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Claimant filed the above Appeal aggrieved against the aard passed in M.C.O.P.No. 399/1993, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharapuram, dated 24.1.1996; exonerating the 3rd respondent-insurance company from their liability to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE claimant was travelling in the scooter bearing Regn. No.TN 33 Y 3994 as pillion rider and the scooter was driven by the 18th respondent. We need not traverse all the facts, as there is no dispute about the factual findings given by the Tribunal, including the fact that in the accident that took place on 5.2.1993, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. Though the said scooter was insured by the 3rd respondent Insurance company, the Tribunal held that since the policy in question is an "Act only policy" the appellant being a pillion rider, he cannot cla im any compensation from the 3rd respondent-insurance company as he is not a third party but he is a passenger in the said scooter.

(3.) THE liability of Insurance Company could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. THE minimum requirements and risk compulsorily coverable under the insurance were mentioned in Sec.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , hereinafter called "the Act 1939" . which reads as follows: