~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.3492/2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam has come up in appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. 2. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 13.05.2001. The vehicle in question was admittedly covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal has passed an award granting an amount of ₹39,000/- as compensation. At the same time, even though the vehicle was covered by a valid comprehensive insurance policy, the Tribunal has taken the view that extra premium was not paid for covering the pillion rider of the motor bike and, therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to compensate the appellant. Presently, the appellant is challenging the insufficiency of the amount of compensation as well as the order exonerating the 3rd respondent from liability.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Anil S. Raj and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Smt.P.K.Santhamma.
4. It has come out that the 3rd respondent had no contention in the written statement that the appellant was not covered by the policy. It seems that the Tribunal has ventured much to conclude that the pillion rider of the motor bike was not covered even though a comprehensive policy was issued by the 3rd respondent. It is trite law that in cases of 'act only policy', if extra premium is not paid for covering gratuitous passengers, they are not covered. Here, the policy in question is not an 'act only policy', whereas it was a comprehensive policy. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that in such a case, the gratuitous passenger or pillion rider was not covered. Matters being so, the finding entered by the Tribunal that the 3rd respondent has no liability, is only to be set aside.
5. Regarding the compensation, it seems that the appellant had sustained (i) Lacerated injury (R) knee with injury to ligament patella (severely contaminated) (ii) Lacerated injury lateral angle of (R) eye, and (iii) Abrasion both hands. It seems that the appellant had sustained a very serious injury which required wound debridment, skin grafting etc. He had to spend 22 days in hospital as inpatient. Even though any disability certificate has not been produced, the pain and sufferings has to be taken note of. It seems that the court below has granted an amount of ₹10,000/- only towards pain and sufferings along with discomforts and inconvenience. Naturally, in this particular case, the appellant is entitled to get an amount of ₹12,000/- towards pain and sufferings and a further amount of ₹5,000/- towards loss of amenities. The other heads under which compensation has been granted by the Tribunal do not call for any interference. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of ₹7,000/- more as compensation on account of the injury sustained to the appellant.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and an additional amount of ₹7,000/- with 7.5% per annum from the date of petition is granted as compensation to the appellant over and above the amount arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned award. Further, it is found that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the said amount. The 3rd respondent shall pay the amount within two months from today.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/11/06 // True Copy // PA to Judge