IMPORTANT POINT
The terms and conditions of an insurance policy must be strictly construed, and the parties to the contract are bound by these terms. In the case of a comprehensive policy, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation if there is a violation of the policy terms regarding the use of the vehicle for hire.

JUDGMENT :

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 716/2013 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, dated 08.09.2017, questioning the liability fixed on the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 32,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The facts of the case are that on 04.02.2013 at about 07.15 a.m. the claimant is traveling in Toyota Innova Car from Aland to Tirupati. At that time, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle. The Car dashed to the pole located on the side of the road, the Car turtled the claimant including other passengers sustained injuries. The claimant had sustained grievous injuries on his forehead and right leg. He was taken to the Hospital and he had spent huge amounts for treatment.

3. The Tribunal had granted the compensation of an amount of Rs. 13,37,782/-. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had held that as per the evidence of the claimant, the vehicle was used for hire by the claimant and others for going to Tirupati on the date of accident. The claimant and other passengers are not relatives of the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal had observed that the claimant had failed to prove that the insurance policy was issued, covering the risk of the inmates of the offending vehicle. As per Ex.D.1, the insurance policy is covering the risk of the inmates of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had observed that as per Ex.D.1 the risk of owner cum driver and one employee is covered.

4. The Tribunal had also extracted the condition No. (i) of the insurance policy (liability to 3rd parties), “the agreement is made that death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward), but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured.” It is observed by the Tribunal that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the claimant was traveled in the offending vehicle for hire. As per the policy, the risk of the inmates is not covered. Hence, it is held that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner of the vehicle submits that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy and as per the comprehensive policy, all the inmates are covered. It is submitted that basing on the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, the insurance company had issued the circulars, wherein it is made clear that in respect of the comprehensive/package policy, the inmates of the vehicle are covered. Subsequent thereto several appeals are withdrawn by the insurance company. He submits that the finding of the Tribunal in this case that though it is a package policy, the inmates are not covered, is contrary to their own circulars and contrary to the settled law.

6. The learned counsel had relied on an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhimaraya Hanamantray Baichalbal vs. Sri. Gudusab and Another in MFA No. 31908/2012 along with MFA No. 31747/2012, dated 12.11.2020.

7. In the said appeals, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle exonerating the insurance company. The said appeals are preferred by both the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. The learned Judge had referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Kalawathi, 2011 (1) MACR 11 (KAR) with regard to the discrimination between paid inmate and gratuitous inmate, when the vehicle is covered with the comprehensive policy.

8. Another judgment