Point of Law: Motor Vehicle Accident – Liability of insurance company - Insurer liable to pay compensation in case of 'comprehensive/package policy" but not in case of "Act policy".

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 22.05.2006 passed in M.V.C.No.239/2003 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Hassan (‘the Tribunal’ for short) and set aside the modified award dated 28.08.2010 carried out on 15.09.2010.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the Tribunal in order to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the first respondent has filed a claim petition claiming the compensation for the death of her son-Harisha in an accident, which took place on 14.09.1998 stating that her son was traveling in a Tractor-Trailor bearing registration No.KA-13, T-729 and 730 (in short ‘the tractor’), was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the KEB pole and skidded to the Paddy field. As a result of which one Purushothama and the deceased sustained injuries; wherein the deceased died at the hospital. The deceased was hale and healthy before the accident, doing Supervisory work in the Tractor earning Rs.4,000/-per month and maintaining the claimant. Due to the sudden demise of her son, she has suffered irreparable loss. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the Insurer of the Tractor. The second respondent opposed the claim petition by filing objection statement contending that the deceased was traveling as a passenger contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy and permit. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The claimant in order to substantiate her claim, she examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company though objected the claim petition did not choose to examine any of the witnesses, however, got marked the document as Ex.D1 – Insurance Policy.

5. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence and on appreciation of the material available on record, allowed the claim petition of this petitioner in part granting compensation of Rs.3,39,000/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till deposit and directed the first respondent-owner alone held liable to pay the compensation. The owner had filed Misc.No.60/2006 challenging the liability fastened on him and the notice has been ordered against the claimant as well as the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company was represented through its counsel. The Tribunal in Misc.No.60/2006 modified the Judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.239/2003 dated 22.05.2006 on the file of Tribunal is reviewed to the extent recalling the dismissal of the claim against the insurer and allowed the claim petition against the Insurer and directed to pay the compensation amount, modifying the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

6. The main contention of the appellant-Insurance Company in this appeal is that the learned member of the Tribunal has committed an error in modifying the award dated 22.05.2006 made in MVC No.239/2003 by his order dated 28.08.2010 fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. The Tribunal earlier had rightly absolved the liability of the appellant on the ground that there is no coverage to the Supervisor traveling in an agricultural Tractor-Trailer, had no reason to change that view in view of the review petition. Even though, there was an order modifying the liability by its order dated 21.04.2007 there was no direction to modify the award. Therefore, the office of that Tribunal had been directed to amend the award by order dated 28.08.2010 and on that basis the award has been modified on 15.09.2010. Hence, it requires to be set aside.

7. The learned member of the Tribunal had no basis to make the appellant liable to pay the compensation for the death of the alleged Super