NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. S L SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal arises out of an award passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad dated 31st May, 2007 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest towards compensation in the case of injury of the victim while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motor cycle insured under the appellant/insurance company. Admittedly the application has been made by the claimant under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in which the compensation is awarded. Section 163-A of the Act, unlike section 166 of the Act, is limited in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident. No wrongful act, negligence or default by other/s is/are required to be proved thereunder.

(2.) BY preferring this appeal, the insurance company contended before this Court that as the injured himself stated in the Tribunal that he has not faced any permanent disablement, the claim petition under section 163-A of the Act does not lie. Moreover, the injured sustained injury as a pillion rider. The insurance policy does not cover the accident of pillion rider. Therefore, the victim is not entitled to claim any amount from the insurance company.

(3.) SO far as the question of pillion rider is concerned the same has been elaborately discussed by the Tribunal and ultimately came to a conclusion that the insurance policy appears to be comprehensive in nature which includes pillion rider. Principle of "third party risk" has also been made applicable in respect of such pillion rider in view of the cited judgments therein. Good, bad, indifferent, we are of the view that since the Tribunal has already discussed and came to a conclusion upon framing the issues with regard to liability of pillion rider, we do not want to interfere with the same at present due to other contingency. The contingency is whether the claimant not being permanently disabled, can get compensation from the insurance company under section 163-A of the Act? The insurance company has relied only on a solitary statement of the victim. However, the Tribunal has overlooked the same and made an award in favour of the victim/claimant. Although such inference could have been seen to be negligible but when we have come across several judgments with regard to differentiation between section 163-A and section 166 under the Act, we can not ignore the point.