JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.(Oral):- Both the appeals are connected and they arise out of claims for compensation for injuries suffered in motor accident. The claimants were passengers in a car which struck against a stationary truck. The Court found that the accident had taken place by failure of the brakes of the car and claimant should be awarded compensation on the basis of no fault liability for the disability suffered under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. In a case where the passengers of the car themselves were not responsible for the accident and they could not be stated to have contributed to negligence. It must be taken as a case of composite negligence between two drivers of the vehicle that had been involved in the accident. The Court has already apportioned the liability as 50-50% for the assessment made on the basis of no fault liability. The apportionment as ordered is retained and the cases are considered only as regards the adequacy of compensation that could be determined. 3. The Tribunal was in error in fixing only liability on the basis of no fault. On the other hand, the Court must have seen that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the car whose brakes have failed and the driver of the truck who had made the vehicle stationary in the portion of the road and caused some form of danger for persons using the road. The assessment of compensation ought to have been, therefore, just compensation under Section 166 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act. 4. As regards the claim in FAO No.2015 of 1998, the claimant was a bank employee who had an injury in his head that caused a fracture of the frontal bone and resulted after some treatment stoppage of brain fluid and left a permanent impairment of voice. The doctor who was examined as PW-2 gave evidence to the effect that there had been apportionment of the left vocal cords. He explained the speech impairment to mean that the injured could speak only in whispers and after two years i.e. at the time when he gave evidence, the condition was the same. His evidence was that it was not possible to regain his volume of speech. He explained the speech impairment to mean that the injured could speak only in whispers and after two years i.e. at the time when he gave evidence, the condition was the same. His evidence was that it was not possible to regain his volume of speech. For a bank employee to have a difficulty in speech, I would definitely believe that, it would cause very serious impairment to the amenities of his life. I have no particular evidence about how it impairs his earning skills or impedes his prospects of promotion. I therefore, asses the compensation only for loss of amenities of life for the disability which he has suffered at Rs.50000/- and increase the pain and suffering component to Rs.30000/-. The Court has already provided for compensation for medical expenses at Rs.20000/-. On the whole the total compensation payable would be Rs.1 lakh. The amount in excess of what has been assessed shall attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability will be apportioned between the insurers of the respective vehicles. 5. As regards the claim which is the subject matter of appeal in FAO No.2016 of 1998, the claimant had a fracture of the Tibia and he had been hospitalized and took treatment from 19.7.1993 to 2.8.1993. The Tribunal had provided for Rs.20000/- for medical expenses, Rs.10000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.10000/- for disability for a fracture which was reduced by a surgical intervention. The compensation for pain and suffering would be retained as Rs.10000/- since a personal damage cannot be claimed by a legal representative, except the amount already awarded and provision for medical expenses shall be provided at Rs.25000/- as already done and for disability there shall be a provision for Rs.20000/-. The total compensation payable would therefore be Rs.55000/- The amount in excess of what has been assessed shall attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 6. In the manner of apportionment of liability, the contention of the insurer of the car is that the vehicle had been insured only for own damage to the vehicle and even the premium for third party insurance had not been paid. 6. In the manner of apportionment of liability, the contention of the insurer of the car is that the vehicle had been insured only for own damage to the vehicle and even the premium for third party insurance had not been paid. I cannot comprehend as to how insurance company can issue a policy of insurance only for own damages and not take an insurance for third party risk which is compulsory under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal itself has commented about the fact that the insurance company had not filed the copy of policy of insurance before the Court to determine the actual extent of liability before this Court as well. I have given several opportunities for insurance company to make a verification and submit the necessary documents. All that the counsel was able to do is to produce a photocopy of a truncated policy of insurance. I take no notice of the document and hold that the insurance company is liable even for passengers in the vehicle assuming it to be a comprehensive policy that covers a risk of even gratuitous passenger. 7. The award stands modified and the appeals are allowed to the above extent. --------0.B.S.0------------