JUDGEMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. The appellant in this case is Sri Saiman Mahilary, who is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and he has prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents in this case are the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sri Kanaj Kumar Brahma, who was the owner of the offending vehicle and Sri Jwngsar Basumatary, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and are arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 4 respectively. 2. It is submitted that the appellant has spent more than Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lacs) as medical expenses but a lesser amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that the Insurer did not adduce proper evidence. It is also contended that the Tribunal has ignored that the driver was holding a valid driving license. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2015 of the learned Trial Court passed in MAC Case No. 64/2014. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company laid stress in their argument that the policy of the offending vehicle was Act only policy and thus, the owner is liable to pay. It is submitted that this judgment was correctly passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has prayed to dismiss this appeal as this appeal is devoid of merits. 5. The genesis of the case was that on 06.11.2013 at about 10:00 PM, when the claimant along with Jwngsar Basumatary was proceeding on the way from a mela in a motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/L-8380, suddenly a street dog came in front of their motorcycle and the respondent No. 4 Jwngsar Basumatary lost control and they met with an accident. The claimant was a pillion rider and he sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was admitted to MRM Hospital, Kokrajhar and thereafter, he was referred to Lower Assam Hospital and Research Centre, Bongaigaon. He had to undergo three major brain operations and fortunately, he recovered after his prolonged treatment. 6. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company and the policy No. 1306053113P103799673 was valid at the time of the accident as it was valid from 20.09.2013 upto 19.09.2014. He had to undergo three major brain operations and fortunately, he recovered after his prolonged treatment. 6. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company and the policy No. 1306053113P103799673 was valid at the time of the accident as it was valid from 20.09.2013 upto 19.09.2014. The claimant as PW-1, to substantiate his evidence, exhibited Form-54, MVI report and medical documents etc. He has also stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and this fact although disputed by the respondents had remained uncontroverted. 7. The learned Tribunal has observed that the witness Krishna Chouhan (PW- 2) has substantiated the evidence of the claimant as he was an eye witness. It was held by the Tribunal that the expenses were Rs.2,65,688/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Eight) and the claimant was an indoor patient from 07.11.2013 upto 21.11.2013 at Hayat Hospital, Guwahati. His injuries were diagnosed as head injury, brain contusion B/L, right tempero-parietal EDH/SDH with calvarial fracture. 8. After assessing the loss of income for three months, and after considering the notional income as the income of the claimant, the claimant was awarded Rs.3,24,688/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Eight). 9. It was held that the policy was a “liability policy” and therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 626 , the owner of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the compensation. 10. Heard learned counsel Mr. I.A. Talukdar for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. K.K. Bhatta for the respondents. 11. Now, the point for determination is that whether the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding insufficient compensation. 12. It appears that the appellant was a pillion rider. As a claimant he has stated through his evidence and pleadings that on 06.11.2013 at about 10.00 PM, he was returning along with the opposite party No. 4 Sri Jwngsar Basumatary, who was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/L- 8380. A street dog came in front of the motorcycle and resulted in the accident. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was knocked unconscious by the impact of the accident. A street dog came in front of the motorcycle and resulted in the accident. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was knocked unconscious by the impact of the accident. He was immediately admitted in MRM Hospital at Kokrajhar on 06.11.2013 and thereafter, the doctors referred him to Lower Assam Hospital and Research Centre at Bongaigaon wherefrom he was again referred to Hayat Hospital, Guwahati. He underwent three major brain surgeries. 13. Through the written statement, the Insurance Company disputed rash and negligent act on the part of the driver. The Insurance Company has also questioned the validity of the driving license as well as the validity of the insurance policy of the motorcycle, which is also referred to as the offending vehicle. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle also denied the rash and negligent act on their part and has prayed for exoneration as the motorcycle was duly insured and the driver was carrying a valid driving license. 14. The claimant through his evidence and the substantiating evidence of the eye witness Krishna Chouhan could prove that the accident occurred on06.11.2013 at about 10:00 PM. 15. To substantiate the written statement, the Insurance Company examined the Branch Manager, Sri Bichitra Khaklary as D.W., who stated through his evidence-in-chief that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/L- 8380 was covered by the Insurance Company under “liability only” policy and as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy; they are not liable to pay the compensation for pillion riders riding the offending vehicle. It was further argued that the driver Jwngsar Basumatary was holding a learner licence which debars the learner from driving any motorcycle unless he has a person holding a valid driving licence beside him, which was not so in this case. 16. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, it has been held by the learned Tribunal that under such policies, the risk of death of or bodily injury is not covered for a gratuitous passenger or a pillion rider. The Insurer is liable to pay the compensation on account of death on injury of a pillion rider only in case of comprehensive package policy. 17. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited-Versus-Roshanben Rahem Ansha Fakir and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 253 wherein it has been held that :- “14. 17. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited-Versus-Roshanben Rahem Ansha Fakir and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 253 wherein it has been held that :- “14. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. [ (2004) 3 SCC 297 ], this Court opined : "89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are "goods carriage", "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "invalid carriage", "light motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "motor-cab", "motorcycle", "omnibus", "private service vehicle", "semi- trailer", "tourist vehicle", "tractor", "trailer" and "transport vehicle". In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for "motorcycle without gear", [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for "light motor vehicle" is found to be driving a "maxi-cab", "motor-cab" or "omnibus" for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. The said decision has been considered by this Court in Kusum Rai (supra). “ 18. The learned Tribunal held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver was not carrying a valid driving licence. It was correctly observed by the Tribunal as the Form-54 reflects that the diver was carrying a valid driving licence. 19. The appellant has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt Sonali Kalita and others wherein in MACApp./467/2017 vide order dated 22.10.2024 it was observed as follows :- “9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this court is inclined to dispose of this appeal by directing the appellant Insurance Compancy to deposit remaining 50% before the learned Tribunal within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall release the same in favour of the respondents, after obtaining security from the owner of the vehicle. It is further provided that the learned Tribunal shall initiate appropriate steps for recovering the amount so paid by the appellant from the owner of the vehicle. It is further provided that while releasing the compensation amount to the respondents, the learned Tribunal shall also ensure keeping the amount quantified by it as fixed deposit in the names of the two minor daughters of the deceased, in view of the observation made in the impugned judgment and award dated 05.08.2015.” 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-Versus-Shri Mantu Kr. Daimary and Anr. in MAC Appeal No. 46/2014 wherein vide order dated11.01.2024, it was observed that :- “21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-Versus-Shri Mantu Kr. Daimary and Anr. in MAC Appeal No. 46/2014 wherein vide order dated11.01.2024, it was observed that :- “21. The contention of the appellant is that the policy in question is only an Act policy and it covers the risk and liability in respect of the third parties only and it does not cover the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle. The respondent No. 1 has not disputed that the policy issued by the appellant is only Act policy. It is not the case of the Respondent No.1 that policy issued by the appellant is comprehensive policy covering both the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal fastened the liability of the appellant on the ground that as the insurer of the vehicle had issued the policy, they had to pay the compensation. Such finding is erroneous. It is well settled that in an Act policy the rider and the pillion rider of the two wheeler are not covered and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the bodily injuries or death. Whether the pillion rider is covered under the Act policy or not was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the pillion rider is not covered in Act policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the pillion rider.” 21. The appellant as PW-1 has exhibited the medical documents as Exhibit- 3 to 58. The appellant underwent treatment in Hayat Hospital, Guwahati from 07.11.2013 to 21.11.2013. The Insurance Policy has not been exhibited but the Form-54 marked as Exhibit-1 clearly reveals that the policy was valid upto 19.09.2014. Although the appellant claims that he was a businessman, his notional income was taken into consideration to calculate his loss of income as no evidence was adduced by the appellant to substantiate his income as Rs.7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) per month as a businessman. 22. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd-Versus-Challa Upendra Rao and Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 wherein it has been held that :- “13. 22. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd-Versus-Challa Upendra Rao and Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 wherein it has been held that :- “13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case, considering the quantum involved, we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured. 14. The appeals are disposed of with the above observation. There will be no order as to costs.” 23. Reverting back to this case, it is held that in this case the Insurance Company may have a case but the D.W. Bichitra Khaklary, who deposed on behalf of the Insurance Company did not exhibit any documents. The disputed learner’s licence was also not exhibited nor was the policy. In certain ‘liability only’/’act only’ policies, a premium is added as add-on for a pillion rider. The disputed learner’s licence was also not exhibited nor was the policy. In certain ‘liability only’/’act only’ policies, a premium is added as add-on for a pillion rider. It is not clear from the evidence if there was an add-on premium paid for the pillion rider. In certain policies, under ‘liability only’/’act only’, premium is paid for two wheeler vehicle for the rider and for the pillion. It is true that the claimant can be considered to be a gratuitous passenger but without the policy being proved as a ‘liability only’ policy, an order can be passed directing the Insurer to pay the compensation. 24. Although the respondents and D.W. Bichitra Khaklary have asserted that the policy was a ‘liability only’ policy, it was not proved by the Insurance Company through proper documents that the Insurance Policy of the Company was a ‘liability only’ or ‘act only’ policy. The claimant through his documents has proved that the policy of the offending vehicle and the license of the driver, were valid at the time of the accident. Exhibit-1 clearly indicates that the policy of the vehicle and the licence of the driver were valid at the time of the accident. 25. I have also relied on the decisions relied upon by the appellant as well as by the respondents. 26. In view my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,17,123/- (Rupees Four Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three) according to the medical expenses incurred by him. His expense has been supported by documents which he has exhibited as Exhibit No. 3 to 58. To this, an amount of Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) as loss of income for three months and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) is added as non pecuniary damages including pain and suffering. 27. The Insurance Company i.e. the respondents No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to satisfy the award and pay the compensation of Rs.4,51,123/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three) to the claimant. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,51,123/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three) to the appellant and thereafter, the Insurance Company can recover the compensation from the owner in accordance with law and under the terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,51,123/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three) to the appellant and thereafter, the Insurance Company can recover the compensation from the owner in accordance with law and under the terms and conditions of the policy. The owner may be directed to furnish a security. 28. Appeal is hereby partly allowed. 29. No order as to costs. 30. Send back the Trial Court Records.