not accept the claim of the treatment under Ex.P2 as PW.1 is said to have been treated at Nirmala General Hospital for which the case sheet is not filed. Therefore, taking into consideration the injuries being grievous and also the expenditure, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/- was granted. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner suffered any disability except the evidence of PW.2 which has been discarded by the Court below, but, however, the fact remains that the petitioner due to the injuries must have suffered temporary partial disability, pain and suffering. Even if she is not treated by PW.2, the factum that she underwent some treatment cannot be discarded. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted on all counts. The second respondent was made liable to pay the said amount and recover the same from the owner. Evidently, the policy is a comprehensive policy and as per the guidelines of IRDA when the occupants of the car receives injuries and even if separate premium is not paid, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to make good the compensation. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to recover the same from the Insurance Company and as ordered by the lower Tribunal, the Insurance Company may recover from the owner.
