MACApp. 41/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR The appellant is aggrieved by an award dated 30.10.2003 passed by the Mo tor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MAC Case No.5 of 2003. The respondent was a rider on a motorcycle owned by him and driven by hi s son. During the course of the journey, a cow seems to have come in the way and while avoiding the cow, the motorcycle skidded and both the riders fell down. T he respondent suffered grievous injuries on the head and other parts of the body . The respondent then preferred an application for compensation under sect ion 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claim was entertained by the Tribuna l and it was held that the respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.83,835/- from the appellant along with interest. The Insurance Company is now in appeal and it is contended by learned co unsel that since the respondent was the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Poli cy did not cover personal accident cover. I have gone through the Insurance Policy and it says that for own damag e , a premium of Rs.80/- has been taken. There is a further surcharge on own da mage of Rs.450/-. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the surcharge is because the vehicle is an old vehicle. There is nothing to suggest from the Insu rance Policy that the surcharge is for an old vehicle. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that unless there is a personal accident cover, the respondent is not entitled to any compe nsation. Generally speaking, this proposition may be correct and there are decis ions of the Supreme Court to support the proposition canvassed by learned counse l for the Insurance Company. However, insofar the present case is concerned, the witness who appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company, that is, Shri Amit Kumar Das, Senior Assist ant in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd stated on oath that the Insurance Poli cy is a comprehensive policy and the claimant was the first party. In cross-exam ination, he specifically stated that a comprehensive policy means the risk of th e first party and comprises all risks. It means that the Insurance Company is li able to pay compensation to the first party which is the claimant. In the face of the statement made by the witness for the Insurance Compa ny as well as the unexplained surcharge in the Insurance Policy, I have no reaso n to disagree with the Tribunal in the award of compensation in favour of the re spondent. It is, however, made clear that this decision is based on the peculiar f acts of the case and the evidence given by the witness for the Insurance Company and the language used in the Insurance Policy. The appeal is dismissed. Trial Court records be sent back immediately.