1. By way of this appeal, the appellants- original claimants have challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Auxi.), Rajula, dated 23.06.2011, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.2,05,000/- along with 9 per cent interest per annum.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 30.10.2005, while the deceased-Jayantibhai was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, and insured by respondent No.2, herein, the same met with an accident. As a result thereof, the deceased received severe bodily injuries and expired. The appellants, herein, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-Jayantibhai preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the tribunal is meager. The tribunal erred in exonerating respondent No.2- insurance company, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is concerned, I have gone through the impugned award and I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
5. Insofar as the aspect of exoneration of insurance company is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased-Jayantibhai was travelling as a pillion rider on the offending vehicle. In other words, the deceased was not a third party. A copy of the insurance premium receipt(Exhibit-27)of the offending vehicle reveals that the risk of the pillion rider is not covered under the terms of policy. Hence, the tribunal rightly concluded that respondent No.2- insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to satisfy the claim. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to exoneration of insurance company, hence, rejected.
6. In the result, the appeal fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (K.S. JHAVERI,J.)