IMPORTANT POINT
Motor Insurance – It is not statutory liability but contractual liability of a personal accident cover which forms basis of claim raised – Guidelines issued by Tariff Advisory Committee regulates issuance of policies by Insurers but unless it is specified in insurance policy, it cannot bind insured.

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question arising in this appeal is as to whether the family of the brother of the owner of the vehicle, who died in the accident when the tyre of the car he was driving burst, is entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [For brevity ‘the MV Act’]. It is trite that the insurer has no statutory liability to cover the risk of the owner, or as in this case the driver of the vehicle, who steps into the shoes of the owner, when the statutory liability is restricted to third party liabilities.

3. In the present case the claimants, who are the widow, minor children and the parents of the deceased, approached the Tribunal, which granted an amount of Rs.25,82,000/- based on the income of the deceased and the amounts, incurred for transportation, loss of consortium as also travelling and funeral expenses. The insurance company filed an appeal essentially on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the driver, thus absolving the insurer from the liability to indemnify, since the driver, who steps into the shoes of the owner, is the tortfeasor. The High Court looked into the policy and found no case for imposing a statutory liability but found the comprehensive policy with additional premium, to cover only a liability to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- as against any injury/death caused to the owner/driver. The High Court reduced the liability to Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent-insurance company relied on a number of decisions to substantiate the claim of the insurance company before the Tribunal. It was also argued that the guidelines of the insurance company clearly indicates the limited liability insofar as the policy taken by the insurer, the owner of the vehicle. Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondent, however, contended that such a ground was never taken before the Tribunal or before the High Court. It was also contended that the guidelines were never produced in evidence nor was any witness examined on the part of the insurance company. The claimant had mounted the box, but no cross-examination was addressed upon the contentions now raised.

5. On facts, suffice it to notice that the deceased and the owner along with their families were travelling in the car when the right rear tyre burst, resulting in the car going out of control. The vehicle toppled and the driver of the vehicle suffered head injury, to which he succumbed. There is hence no negligence of the driver nor can any fault be attributed to him. The owner of the vehicle, the brother of the deceased, his wife and the wife of the deceased who were travelling in the car sustained injuries. It was categorically stated before the Tribunal that the car was driven safely, in moderate speed with due diligence and caution and the accident occurred only on account of the tyre bursting. On the claim being raised, the owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and asserted that the driver had a valid driving licence to claim coverage under the comprehensive insurance policy.

6. The insurance company filed a written statement alleging no valid licence for the driver, resulting in breach of the conditions of policy by the owner and the negligence of the driver. The Tribunal framed five issues, the first of which was regarding the accident which was admitted to have taken place, in which the driver met his end, which was the second issue; not in dispute. The insurance cover, the third issue was also proved and so was the fourth issue regarding the age of the deceased and his income. The claimant's right to entitlement for compensation and interest was also found in favour. Insofar as the third issue regarding the insurance of the vehicle, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was covered by a comprehensive policy wherein premium of personal accident to owner-cum-driver was paid. The High Court on the other hand, found on a reading of the policy that the additio