Key Points: - The policy in question is a package policy for a private car and may cover passengers, including gratuitous passengers, depending on terms; noted disagreement between High Court and claimants about coverage of passengers (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court references that under a comprehensive policy, third-party liability may extend to gratuitous passengers, but this depends on contract terms and tariff regulations; discusses Amrit Lal Sood and related cases to interpret coverage for passengers (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment notes that in a statutory/Act-only policy, gratuitous passengers may not be covered unless explicitly included; references to sub-section (2) of Section 95 and related decisions including Shanti Bai, Jugal Kishore, Asha Rani, etc. for limits of liability and coverage of third-party risk (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court states that whether a package policy covers gratuitous passengers requires deeper scrutiny and may require a Larger Bench; directs reference to Chief Justice for appropriate orders (!) (!) .

What is the liability of an insurer for death or injury to a passenger in a private car under a package policy?

What is the effect of a comprehensive policy on third-party liability coverage for gratuitous passengers?

What are the implications of a package policy for coverage of passengers in private cars under the Motor Vehicles Act and tariff regulations?