The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance policy of a motor vehicle is not compulsorily required to cover passengers, except in specific cases, and the insurer's liability for no fault liability under section 92-A is determined based on the coverage provided in the policy.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4-9-1992 whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur on 16-1-1986 directing the present appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3750/- towards "no fault liability" under section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Though the amount involved is meagre, the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that as the question of liability of insurance company in respect of pillion rider under third party policy of insurance is involved, the appellant is desirous of the decision in the matter and accordingly we heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent No. 1 herein Babasaheb Anna Mali (for short the claimant) filed a claim petition under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the deceased respondent No. 2 (now represented by his legal heirs) as opponent party No. 1, respondent No. 3 as opponent party No. 2, respondent No. 4 as opponent party No. 3 and the present appellant as opponent party No. 5. The case set up by the claimant in the claim petition is that on 29-4-1984 he was riding on pillion of Hero Majestic Motor Cycle bearing No. MZG 964 owned by Shiva Appa Wadar (opponent party No. 4) being driven by his relative Yashvant Bapu Mali. The said motor cycle was dashed by the truck as a result of which the petitioner as well as the driver of motor cycle sustained serious injuries. Though the driver died immediately thereafter, the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital from 29-4-1984 to 11-6-1984 and due to fracture to the left thigh bone and he became permanently disabled. The claimant, accordingly, prayed for interim award of Rs. 7500/- towards no fault liability under section 92-A. The application under section 92-A was contested by opponents. The present appellant opponent No. 5 denied its liability inter alia on the ground that under insurance policy pillion rider was not covered. After hearing the parties, motor accident claims Tribunal by its order dated 16-1-1986 ordered the present appellant insurer to deposit the sum of Rs. 3750/- in Court. It is this order which was challenged by the insurance company in First Appeal No. 626/1986. As similar question was involved in other first appeals also the entire group of first appeals were heard by the learned Single Judge and by the common judgment dated 4-9-1992 all first appeals were dismissed. Dismissal of First Appeal No. 626/1986 by the judgment dated 4-9-1992 has given rise to present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. As to the scope of the enquiry under section 92-A to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and relevant Rules of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 legal position is no more res integra and it is well settled that before passing an order under section 92-A the claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself in respect of the matters viz. (i) an accident has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle; (ii) the said accident has resulted in permanent disablement of the person who is making the claim or death of the person whose legal representatives have made the claim and (iii) the claim made against the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. In (Shivaji Dayanu Patil another v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1769, the Apex Court considered the ambit and scope of section 92-A elaborately and after taking into consideration the relevant Rules of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 held that holding of the regular trial in the proceeding under section 92-A in the same manner as for adjudicating claim under section 110-A is not permissible at all. The Apex Court emphasized that the claims Tribunal is not required to follow the normal procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules with regard to the adjudication of a claim under section 110-A for the purposes of making an order on a claim petition und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document