JUDGMENT Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18-9-1997 passed by the court· of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam in O.P.No.89/1993, the Insurance Company filed the appeal. 3. The case of the claimant in brief is that on 22-10-1992 at about 1.00 a.m., he was travelling in the car bearing No. DIA2640to go to his native place Gujmpena from Khammam. While so, due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the car dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP - 36/T-2439 near Tirvur cross-roads. As a result of the accident, claimant sustained multiple injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, V.M. Banjer, wherefrom, he was referred to Government Hospital, Khammam. The police registered a case against the driver of the car under Section 338 I.P.C. Alleging that the claimant was an agriculturist having Acs.10-00 of land and out of which Acs.6-00 is wet and rest is dry and that he was growing commercial crop and that he suffered loss of nearly Rs.40,000/- as earnings and that he spent Rs.25,000/- towards medicines and treatment, claim petition was filed claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. The driver and the owner of the vehicle remained exparte and the Insurance Company contested the matter by filing counter and disputed the age, avocation, accident etc, alleged by the claimant. It is stated that the driver of the car has no valid licence. It is contended that as the car was used for hire or reward, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the same amounts to violation of the policy conditions. With these averments, the claim petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries owing to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 6. In support of the case of the claimant, he examinedhimselfasP.W.1 and examined the doctor who treated his injuries, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and the Insurance Company got marked Ex. B-1 copy of the insurance policy. 7. 6. In support of the case of the claimant, he examinedhimselfasP.W.1 and examined the doctor who treated his injuries, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and the Insurance Company got marked Ex. B-1 copy of the insurance policy. 7. Based on the evidence of P.W.1 and also taking into consideration Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are copies of F.I.R., Charge sheet and M.V.I., report and further as the Insurance Company did not lead any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. This being a finding of fact, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in the appeal. 8. Coming to the contention of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was used was for hire or reward, the Tribunal considered Ex. B-1 policy, which shows that the policy was issued for private car having seating capacity of five persons. Though there is condition in the policy that the policy does not cover the use of the vehicle for hire or reward or for speed testing etc., as there is no evidence on record to show the vehicle was used for hire or for reward, the Tribunal found that there are no violations of any policy conditions. In the grounds of appeal, the Insurance Company at ground NO.6 contended that the car was hired at the rate of RS.800/per day and the same is not covered by the policy. As already stated above, to prove that the car was hired for Rs.800/-, there is no evidence on record or at least the same was also not elicited from the evidence of P.W.1. The Insurance Company except marking Ex. B-1 policy did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove that the car was hired for Rs.800/-. In the absence of any evidence on record, the contention of the Insurance Company that the car was hired for Rs.800/-, has no basis and the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected: 9. B-1 policy did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove that the car was hired for Rs.800/-. In the absence of any evidence on record, the contention of the Insurance Company that the car was hired for Rs.800/-, has no basis and the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected: 9. With regard to grant of compensation, the Tribunal considered Exs.A-4 to A-8 which are wound certificate and the relevant documents showing that the claimant was treated at various hospitals and Exs.A-16 to A-21 which are medical bills and receipts.- The Tribunal also considered the evidence of P. W .2, the doctor who treated the claimant. P.W.2 deposed that claimant has grade-III injuries of the maxilio facial surgeon with a fracture of mandible, maxilla and right zygoma and that the claimant was operated on 29th and 30th of October, 1992 with major operation under general anesthesia and discharged on 2-11-1992 and that he required surgery for removal of suspension wires and that first operation was performed to fix the fractured facial bones and wires used to heal the fracture and it is the case of permanent damage to the nerve below eye on account of which sensation of the right side of the face is impaired, thereby there may be difficulty to chew the food and open and close mouth freely and that fracture leads to headache due to inappropriate articulation of the temporo manditular joint. He further deposed that the right side cheek has gone inside comparatively to the left side, which is a permanent disfigurement and there is 100% nerve damage and 40% facial disfigurement. From the evidence of P.W.2 doctor who treated the petitioner it is clear that there is permanent damage to the nerve below eye on account of which he has to suffer complications narrated by the doctor. Further the doctor has categorically deposed that there is permanent disfigurement and 100% nerve damage and 40% facial disfigurement. Considering all these factors, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- for fractures including for disfigurement of face. In the light of the evidence of the doctor P.W.2, I do not find any reason to interfere with the grant of compensation under this head. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards simple injuries and Rs.20,000/- towards the medical and treatment expenses. In the light of the evidence of the doctor P.W.2, I do not find any reason to interfere with the grant of compensation under this head. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards simple injuries and Rs.20,000/- towards the medical and treatment expenses. In the grounds of appeal, the Insurance Company contended that though the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the medical and treatment expenses, the Tribunal has granted more amount. Under the head of medical and treatment expenses, the Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.25,000/-. The other amounts of Rs.60,000/- were towards permanent disfigurement and 100% nerve damage and 40% facial disfigurement and Rs.10,000/- towards 3imple injuries. Hence, the ground taken by the Insurance Company that the Tribunal granted more amount than claimed under the head of medical and treatment expenses, is not tenable in the light of the above material on record. 10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company by producing copy of the insurance policy contended that as per the schedule of premium under the column liability, the amount of Rs.240/-, which was paid, covers the risk of the driver and other amount of RS.15/- paid under the head of P.A. benefits, though shown as relate to I.M.T. No.5, they are subject to conditions in I.M.T.Nos.10, 12 and 24 and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as no amount was paid to cover the risk of any third party. The contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company has no legs to stand. A perusal of conditions in the insurance policy at I.M.T.Nos.10, 12 and 24 reveals that these conditions are meant for making good the loss sustained by the motor vehicle and the exemption of the insurance company from paying any damages in case of loss sustained on account of earthquake, fire and shock and the liability with regard to replacement of parts. They do not deal with any payment towards the third party. They do not deal with any payment towards the third party. Though under the column of liability in the schedule of premium, amount is collected for I.M.T. No.5, the same also does not fit to the requirements of the present policy, since the said condition relates to payment of compensation to unnamed passengers other than the insured and his paid driver or cleaner, who sustains body injury in the motor accident I.M.T .No.5 relates to passenger vehicle. The present policy is issued for a private car and, therefore, LM.T. NO.5 is not applicable to the present policy. Further, as contended by the counsel for the claimant, for receipt of Rs.240/- under the column of liability no particulars are given except showing the word Basic. What are the liabilities that are covered under basic is not shown anywhere in the policy. Similarly, the other amount of Rs.15/- paid towards "TPPD" under the column of liability in the schedule of premium in the insurance policy, remained unexplained. Further from the insurance policy the seating capacity is shown as "5 in all". It is not the case of the Insurance Company that there are more than five members in the car. Though the counsel for the insurance company contended that it covers the Mk of driver, there are no specific descriptions. Furthermore, it is mandatory on the part of the owner of the vehicle to take insurance covering the risk of third party as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and non-obtaining of the policy attracts penal provisions. In the present case, the insured has obtained policy for a private car. Therefore, it cannot be said that the insurer is not liable to third parties. 11. Further in the present case, the claimant is an inmate in the car, who as per the evidence on record, has not hired or paid any reward for his travel in the car. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider "Section II-liability to third parties" in the insurance policy. The relevant portion under the said provision in the insurance policy - EX.B-1 is extracted as under for better appreciation: "Section II-Liability to third Parties 1. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider "Section II-liability to third parties" in the insurance policy. The relevant portion under the said provision in the insurance policy - EX.B-1 is extracted as under for better appreciation: "Section II-Liability to third Parties 1. The company will indemnify the Insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor Car against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (a) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the Motor Car provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. (b) ............ 12. From the above provision in the insurance policy, it is clear that the insurance company is liable to third parties in case of their death or bodily injuries including occupants carried in the motor car provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward and the Insurance Company is not liable in case such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. In the present case, as already noted above, as per the un-rebutted evidence on record, the claimant who was travelling has not either hired the car or paid any reward. Further there is also no evidence on record to show that the he was employed by the insured. In the light of the above provision and also in the light of the available evidence on record, the Insurance company cannot disown its liability to the claimant who is a third party. A learned single Judge of High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rasheeda1, considering Section 147 of the Act and the words any person occurring in sub clause (i) of clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, held as under: "6........ The expression used as any person is of wide connotation and includes in itself and within the framework of expression third party used in it any person other than the insurer and the insured. The expression used as any person is of wide connotation and includes in itself and within the framework of expression third party used in it any person other than the insurer and the insured. It may include in itself a traveller in a private vehicle. It may also include in itself the person who is a pedestrian and has died or has been injured by the use of private vehicle on the road. It may also include as a case of pedestrian/ injured or a pedestrian who has died on account of injury caused to him by the use of a vehicle, may be a public service vehicle or private vehicle. But so far as the passengers in a public service are concerned their category has been mentioned separately. The distinction in the use of two expressions in two clauses perse reveal that any person may include a traveller in a private vehicle. The learned counsel contended that it does not include in itself a traveller in private vehicle. I am unable to accept this contention. The private vehicle is also required to be properly insured. The object behind the provision requiring compulsory insurance is to protect the members of community travelling in vehicles or using roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicle on roads and to make realization of compensation a reality in terms of money to the injured as well as to the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased who dies on account of motor accident. If two interpretations are possible it has been held that interpretation beneficial to the subject, i.e., injured or heirs of deceased and the one which promotes object and purpose of the Act is to be adopted.........." To buttress the above conclusion the learned single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan2. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court at paragraph No.13, is re-extracted as under for better appreciation: "In order to divine the intention of the legislature in the course of interpretation of the relevant provisions there can scarcely be a better test than that of probing into the motive and philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping in mind the goals to be achieved by enacting the same. Ordinarily, it is not the concern of the legislature whether the owner of the vehicle insures his vehicle or not. If the vehicle is not insured any legal liability arising on account of third party risk will have to be borne by the owner of the vehicle. Why then has the legislature insisted on a person using a motor vehicle in a public place to insure against third party risk by enacting Section 94. Surely the obligation has not been imposed in order to promote the business of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community travelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or compensation to the dependants of victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the Courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A Court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered from the person held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise undertaken by the law Courts would then be an exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by the very nature of things involve time cost and money cost invested from the scarce resource of the community would make a mockery of the injured victims, or the dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who themselves are obliged to incur not inconsiderable expenditure of time, money and energy in litigation. To overcome this ugly situation the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. To use the vehicle without the requisite third party insurance being in force is a penal offence. The legislature was also faced with another problem. The insurance policy might provide for liability walled in by conditions which may be specified in the contract of policy. To use the vehicle without the requisite third party insurance being in force is a penal offence. The legislature was also faced with another problem. The insurance policy might provide for liability walled in by conditions which may be specified in the contract of policy. In order to make the protection real; the legislature has also provided that the judgment obtained shall not be defeated by the incorporation of exclusion Clauses other than those authorized by Section 96 it will be obligation of the insurance company to satisfy the judgment obtained against the persons insured against third party risks (vide Section 96). In other words the legislature has insisted and made it incumbent on the user of a motor vehicle to be armed with an insurance policy covering third party risks which is in conformity with the provisions enacted by the legislature. It is so provided in order to ensure that the injured victims of automobile accidents or the dependants of the victim of fatal accidents are really compensated in terms of money and not in terms of promise. Such a benign provision enacted by the legislature having regard to the fact that in the modern age the use of motor vehicles notwithstanding the attendant hazards, has become an inescapable fact of life, has to be interpreted in a meaningful manner which serves rather than defeats the purpose of the legislature. The provision has, therefore, to be interpreted in the twilight of the aforesaid perspective." 13. Ultimately at paragraph No.8, the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court held as under: ".........Therefore, in my opinion the expression third party or any person used in Section 147 of Act of 1988 includes in itself even a person travelling in a private car." 14. The learned counsel for the insurance company relying on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. S. Vijayalakshmi3 contended that the insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify the insured beyond the terms of the insurance policy. 15. For better appreciation it is necessary to extract limits of liability in the insurance policy. "Limits of Liability: Section II-1 (a):- As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section II-1 (b) Rs.6,000/- in respect of anyone claim or series of claims arising out of one accident." 16. 15. For better appreciation it is necessary to extract limits of liability in the insurance policy. "Limits of Liability: Section II-1 (a):- As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section II-1 (b) Rs.6,000/- in respect of anyone claim or series of claims arising out of one accident." 16. Section II-1 (a) has already been extracted above and it is held that the claimant falls within the ambit of occupant of the motor car. As per the limits of liability, Section II-1 (a) has to be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the relevant provisions under Section 147 of the Act has to be applied and as per sub clause (b)(i) the insurance company has to indemnify the insured the liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or His authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third /party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The words any person occurring in sub clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 147(1) includes even third parties as per the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the decision cited above. Further the Apex Court in the decision reported in Skandia Insurance Company (2 supra) has vividly explained the object of the compulsory insurance and the intention of the legislature. The relevant portion has already been extracted above. The limit of Rs.6,000/- in the limits of liability, as per the terms of the insurance policy is applicable to Section II-1 (b) which states that "damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or any member of the insureds household or being conveyed by the motor car." and the present case falls under Section II-1 (a), as the claimant is the occupant of the car. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company that it is liable only to the extent of its liability cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected and the judgment relied on by the counsel for the insurance company cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company that it is liable only to the extent of its liability cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected and the judgment relied on by the counsel for the insurance company cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. The other judgment relied-on by the counsel for the insurance company reported in Andhavarapu Kamaraju v. Thammineni Seetharam4 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.