Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
M.G. Giratkar, J.
United India Insurance Co Ltd -Appellant
Versus
Shindutai Wasudeorao Thakare -Respondent
First Appeal No. 804 of 2008
Decided on : 09-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
Asghar Hussain, Advocate, P.R. Agrawal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a comprehensive insurance policy covers the risk of a pillion rider, making the insurance company liable to pay compensation for the death of the pillion rider.
Headnote:
Insurance Policy - Pillion Rider - The court held that the comprehensive insurance policy covered the risk of a pillion rider, making the insurance company liable to pay compensation for the death of the pillion rider.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle insured by the appellant. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle's owner. The claimants filed a petition for compensation, which was partly allowed by the Claim Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the comprehensive insurance policy covered the risk of a pillion rider, making the insurance company liable to pay compensation. The appeal by the appellant was dismissed, and the court directed the appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the comprehensive insurance policy covered the risk of a pillion rider and made the insurance company liable to pay compensation for the death of the pillion rider.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another, which held that the risk of passengers in a private car is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, making the insurance company liable to pay compensation. The court also referred to the judgment in the case of General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and others, which affirmed the liability of the insurance company for the death of a pillion rider.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. The court also directed the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to pay the amount of compensation along with accrued interest to the claimants.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The main legal issue in the case was whether a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy covers the risk of a pillion rider, thereby making the insurance company liable to pay compensation in the event of the rider's death (!) (!) .
-
The court established that a comprehensive insurance policy does indeed cover the risk of a pillion rider, which makes the insurance company liable for compensation if the rider suffers injury or death due to an accident (!) .
-
The facts of the case involved a deceased pillion rider who was traveling on an insured motorcycle, which was involved in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The claimants filed for compensation, which was partly granted by the Claim Tribunal (!) .
-
The insurance policy in question was a comprehensive policy, and the court relied on relevant circulars and guidelines indicating that such policies generally cover passengers, including pillion riders (!) (!) .
-
The court also referred to relevant judgments that support the position that the liability of the insurance company extends to pillion riders under comprehensive policies, especially when circulars and standard forms indicate such coverage (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company, affirming that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation for the death of the pillion rider, and directed the insurer to pay the amount along with accrued interest (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the liability of the insurance company is supported by the policy terms and relevant circulars, and that the insurer's argument that the risk of pillion riders is not covered was unfounded (!) (!) .
-
The final order directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount, which was to be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT :
M G Giratkar, J.
1. Heard Shri Hussain, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate for respondent no. 1 and 2.
2. None appears for respondent no. 3.
3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under (The parties shall be referred by their status in the Claim Tribunal):
On 22.09.2002, deceased - Prashant was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing No.MH-24/N-2235 from Morshi to Vishanora at about 11.30 p.m. The offending vehicle was insured by the respondent no. 2 (appellant). The respondent no. 1 was driving the said vehicle in high speed, rashly and negligently. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle the accident took place. The deceased - Prashant was admitted in General Hospital, Amravati. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Gautam Darda at Nagpur. He died during the treatment.
The legal representatives of the deceased - Prashant filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Amravati (for short the "Claim Tribunal") and claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The respondent no. 1 i.e. the owner and driver of the vehicle filed his written statement at Exh. 19. The claim of the claimants was resisted by the respondent no. 2 (appellant) by filing written statement at Exh. 17. Issues were framed at Exh. 20. The claimants adduced their evidence. The respondent no. 2 (appellant) examined Advocate Amol Kaloti, who was appointed as Investigator.
After hearing both sides, the Claim Tribunal partly allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- inclusive of No Fault Liability with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition i.e. 09.06.2003. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Heard Shri Hussain, learned Advocate for the appellant (original respondent no. 2). He has submitted that the learned Claim Tribunal wrongly granted compensation. The risk of pillion rider is not covered in the Insurance Policy.
5. Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) has pointed out the Insurance Policy and submitted that it was comprehensive policy. Learned Advocate has pointed out the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) ACJ 199, and submitted that risk of pillion rider is covered in the comprehensive/package policy. Therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.
6. From the perusal of Insurance Policy (Exh. 26), it is clear that it was comprehensive policy for the offending vehicle. There is no dispute about it. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) ACJ 199, has held that:
"In view of circular dated 18.03.1978 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee and circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 3.12.2009 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, risk of passengers in a private car is covered under comprehensive/package policy and insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation......"
7. Learned Advocate Shri Agrawal has pointed out the judgment in the case of General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and others, (2009) ACJ 104, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter. As per the circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company......."
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant (original respondent no. 2) is liable to pay compensation for the death of pillion rider. There is no dispute that the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on the scooter of respondent no. 3. There is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant (original respondent no. 2) and owned by respondent no. 3, namely, Dilip Kohal
