M.C.Sharma, J. - (1.) SINCE both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the judgment and award dt. 22.12.2008 passed by Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.2.2006 when the claimant was travelling in Santro Car No. RJ -02 -TC -0255 going from Bandikui to Police Line Dausa, which was being driven by its driver Seetaram and owned by Dharmendra Yadav, the said car met with an accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained injury.
(2.) THEREAFTER claim petition was filed, notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 1,66,500/ - in favour of claimant and against the non -claimants. The Insurance company has filed the instant appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, while the claimant has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Insurance company has contended that the learned Tribunal while imposing the liability upon the appellant Insurance company, deciding issue no. 3 observed that the insurer had charged the premium to cover the risk of occupant who are third party. The approach of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and from the bare perusal of the policy, it is clear that the policy does not cover the risk of occupant of the vehicle as the occupant does not come within the purview of third party. The insurer has not paid any extra premium for covering the risk of occupant of vehicle. Hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable for any compensation as there was no risk assumed by the insurer and on this count also the impugned award being contrary to law is liable to be quashed and set -aside.;