On 11.4.2002 while the petitioner was travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider he sustained injuries. On the allegation that the accident was due to the negligence of the second respondent, who was the rider of the vehicle, he prayed for compensation. The first respondent was the owner and the third respondent the insurer. The Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the second respondent and the appellant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It exonerated the third respondent from the liability on the ground that though the vehicle was covered by an insurance policy, the conditions attached to it did not entitle him to get compensation from the insurer. This finding is challenged in this appeal. 2. Heard.
3. It is seen from Ext.B1 policy that it was issued subject to IMT (Indian Motor Tariff) 64, 70 and 71. The Tribunal held that IMT 71 is applicable. There cannot be M.A.C.A. No.1180 of 2013
-2-
any doubt that IMT 71 is not applicable because it is applicable to a rider only. The appellant was not the rider but the pillion rider of the vehicle.
4. A perusal of the IMT shows that it is IMT 64 that is applicable. Under this clause, entires 'a' & 'b' are applicable only if the accident resulted in death or loss of 100%. Entry 'c' is applicable only if the loss is 50%. The permanent disability of the appellant is only 1.5%. So the above clauses are not applicable to him. The only remaining entry is entry No.'d'. This is applicable only if the injury has disabled the victim from taking up any employment or occupation. He has no such case. It follows that the appellant is not entitled to get compensation from the insurer. Though the finding of the Tribunal is correct, I agree with the finding on a different ground. The appeal is only to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/