PURSHOTTAM RAJAK Vs. DAYARAM RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimant mainly against the award dated 2/7/2009 passed by Sixth A.M.A.C.T., Jabalpur in M.V.C. No.126/2006 being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal and also exonerating the insurance company from the liability despite the fact that there was valid policy coverage in respect of the vehicle involved and further that the same was a package policy subsequently renamed as Standard Motor Package Policy covering the risk of pillion rider as well. The tribunal exonerated the insurance company by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhakaran K.M. and others [(2008) (3) T.A.C. 1] to the effect that pillion rider is not covered under the clause of third party.

(2.) On the date of accident, i.e. 2/7/2009, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration no. MP20KB3392 driven by respondent no.1 Dayaram, when above mentioned motorcycle collided with an another motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 Dayaram and the appellant sustained injuries in the accident. Appellant got fractures in nasal and jaw bones and after accident, he was taken to medical hospital. In accident, the driver of another motorcycle expired and criminal case was registered at police station Garha against respondent no.1 Dayaram. Respondent no.2 was the owner and respondent no.3 was the insurer of the motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 on the date of incident. Thus, they were liable for payment of compensation to the claimant jointly and severally.

(3.) Respondent no.1 Dayaram pleaded before the tribunal that the accident had not occurred due to his fault. Present respondent no.2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. Respondent no.3 Insurance Co. pleaded that respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the risk of pillion rider was not covered under the policy, thus insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It was also pleaded that the owner and insurance company of the other motorcycle have not been made party in the claim.