3E HlGHCOURTOFCHHATTlSg^RHATM DI^|SJQN-B£IM&H CORAM: HON'BLE SNRi RAJBB^ ©UPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J MA.C. No. 880 Qf 2008 ADpellant Defendant No.3 Respondent No.1 CSasmanS No.1 Respondent No.2 Clalmant ^8o.2 Resoondent No.3 Cteimant No.3 Respondent No.4 CSaimant No.4 Respondent No.5 CSaimant Mo.5 Respondent No.6 Defendant No.1 Respondent No.7 Defendant No.2 IFFCO - TOKIO Generai Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd; 3rd Fioor 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Mal, GE Road, Raipur, (CG) Versus 1 Smt Ishwarmati Kaiwart, Agd about 47 years.W/o Late Thanwar Ram Kaiwart 2 Santosh Kumar Kaiwart, Aged about 23 years, S/o Late Thanwar Ram Kaivrfart 3 Ant Ram Kaiwart, Agd about 21 years, S/oLate Thanwar Ram Kaiwart 4 Sant Ram Kaiwart, Aged about 17 years, S/o Late Thanwar Ram Kalwart 5 Kumart Savita Kaiwart, Aged about 13 years, D/o Late Thanwar Ram Kaiwart Respondent No 4 and 5 i^linor, represented through guardian mother Respondent No.1 Ail resident of Village Manikpur, Post - Dhuma, Thana - Torwa, Dlstt BISaspyr (CG) 6 Sattumal Rohra, Aged -about 47 years, S/o Ferumaj Rohra, Resident of Bandhwapara, Hemunagar, Tehsil anti District - BJIaspur (CG) (Driver) 7 Manish Kumar Rohra, Aged about 23 years, S/o Satturaal Rohra, R^ident of Bandhwapara, Hemunagar, Tehsil and Dsstnct - Bii'aspur (CG) S^^S^^^^^^^^^^Bi^^SB^SII^S ($) Miscellaneous Appeal under Seetion 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act. 1888 Present : Shri YS Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 to5. Shri Suresh Verma, counsel for respondents No.Q & 7. QRDEB (22nd June. 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is Insurer's appeal agatnst the impugraed awerd dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunat') in Claim Case No. 86/2007, whereby the appellant / Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Thanwar Ram Kewart in the motor accident on 12.06.2007. 2) Deceased Thanwar Ram Kewart was travelling es a pillion rider on the Motorcycie bearlng Fegistration No.CG-IO/EC-1681 when the mtrtorcyclist dashed it against a Hyva Truck, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot Itself. The appellanVlnsurance Company is the insurer of the said Motorcycte. 3) The appellant /Insurance Company has challenged ie impugned award on the following grounds taken in the memo of appeai: 3 "A. Because it was a speciflc plea taken by the appellant Insurance Company in the written statement that the Motor Cycle which was being used by the claimant was hit by a Hyva Truck having registration no.CG 10 G 9060. Consequently, the offending vehicle isthe Hyva Truck having registration no.CG 10 G 9060 and not the motor cycle which was used by the ciaimant. Therefore, claim should have been made against the Hyva Truck having registration no.CG 10 G 9060 and the Insurance eompany with which itwas insured. B. Because it was specifK plea taken by tfie appellant Insurance Company in the written statement that no extra premium was paid to cover the risfl< of person /passenger sitting /travellng in the Motor Cycle having registration no.CG 10 EC 1681. That the deceased does not come within the category of "thlrd party", Therefore, the insurance company has no liability to pay the compensatlon. C. Because the award of Rs.50,000/- tawards "Other Expenses" is not just and is without cogent reasons. The same is not rational, judicious and is outeome of whims, wild guess and arbitrarlness. It is setded principle of law that the eompensation awarded should be just and proper. The award of Rs.50,000/- towerds "Other Expenses" is in flagrant violation of thesettied principles of law. D. Because the award of Rs.50,000/- towards "Qther Expenses" Rs.5,000/- towards "Funeral Expenses" and Rs.30,000/- towards "Loss of Love and affectien" is not in accordance with Structured Formula indteated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. @ That Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehteles Act 1988. provides for payment of compensation as indicated jn i the Second Schedule. Any compensation fc^yond the i formula indicated in the second schedule is jn flagrarat violation of law." 4) Shri YS Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company fairly conceded that the application fileel by tNe appellant / Insurance Company under Section 170 of Vrve Motor Vehicles Act for grant of permission to contest the claim on all available defenses was dismissed by the Tribunal vide erder dated 22.01.2008 on the ground that the owner and ctriver of the Motorcycle were contesting the clalm. 5) As the owner and driver of t^ie Motoreycte were contesting the ciaim, the order passed by the Tribunal, djsmissing the appellant's application under Section 170 ofthe IVtotor Vehides Act does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 6) So far as the main ground relating to non paymwt of extra premium for covering the risk of pillion rider is ooncerned, it is Important to note that the policy issued by the appellant/hisurance Company in regard to the Motorcycle was a Packege Policy (comprehensive policy). The Circular dated 16.11.2008 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority speclfteally mentions that the risk of pillion rider in a two-wheeler under a Package Poltey(comprehensive policy) is covered without payment ofany extra premium. 7) In view of the above Circular dated 16.11.2009, the ground taken by the appellant/lnsurance Company In regard to non-payment of extra premium by the owner of the MotDrcycle Is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 8) As the appellant / Insurance Company was not granted permission bythe Tribunal under Section 170 ofthe MotorVehides Act, the appellant / Insurance Company cannot be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation in view ot the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limlted Vs Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, reported in 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC) 9) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the appellant/lnsurance Company is liable to be dismlssed and is hereby dismissed. 10) Consequently, the interim order dated 08.07.2008 stands vacated automatically. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma