A comprehensive insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act covers both paid and gratuitous passengers, and insurers cannot deny liability based on passenger status.

JUDGMENT :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.03.2019 passed in MVC.No.597/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VIII, Muddebihal.

2. Respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2 is owner of the vehicle, which was insured with appellant – insurance company.

3. The facts leading to filing of claim petitions are as under:-

That on 28.12.2015 respondent No.2 along with respondent No.1 -Devendrappa Biradar, Shahebgouda Choudari, and others were traveling in Cruiser Jeep bearing its Reg.No.KA-23-M-9319 belonging to respondent No.2 to visit his grand-mother at Karibavi village from Sasanur. At about 06.00 a.m. when they were on Talikoti – Balaganur road near the land of Sri. Hanchate, respondent No.2 being the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle, due to which it turned and turtled on the road. As a result of the accident Shahebgouda Choudari sustained grievous injuries and died. Respondent No.1 - Devendrappa Biradar and others sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 has filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The appellant – insurance company contested the said claim petition. The appellant – insurance company had taken up the contention that the conditions of the insurance policy have been violated and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The Tribunal has framed issue No.3 which reads thus:-

“Whether the respondent No.2 (insurance company) proves that the conditions of the policy have been violated and therefore the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.?

6. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, answered the said issue in the negative and held that the respondent No.2 – insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant – Insurance Company is before this Court.

8. The appeal is filed on the following ground:-

It is submitted that the deceased and others were unauthorized passenger carried in the insured private vehicle in violation of the policy terms and without a valid permit. The provisions of Section 147 of M.V. Act do not require the risk to be covered under the policy nor the policy covered the risk. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact and passed the award.

9. The contention of the appellant – insurance company that the respondent No.1 - Devendrappa Biradar was paid passenger in a private vehicle and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, as the conditions of the policy have been violated.

10. The Tribunal while considering the said issue has given its reasons in Para Nos.41 and 42 which read thus:-

“41. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Kalavati and others ILR 2011 Kar 2328 in Sri. Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Mayavati and others, MFA 20106/2013 (MV) dated 27/9/2016 has held thus:

The issue of liability of the Insurer to indemnify the owner, when the vehicle covered with the comprehensive policy was used for hire or reward i.e., when the deceased was a paid passenger in a private vehicle, is no more res-integra, squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of KALAWATHI [supra], wherein this Court has held thus:

“That apart, we do not find any rationale for the insurer as a ‘State’ to discriminate between the paid inmate and the gratuitous inmate when the vehicle is covered with Comprehensive Pol