Insurance companies cannot deny liability for accidents outside India without a specific exclusion clause in the policy; dependency includes emotional ties beyond financial support.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since issue involved in both the appeals is identical, upon request of learned advocates for both the sides, both the appeals are decided analogously by common judgment.

1.1 First Appeal No.4672 of 2019, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.4.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot @ Gondal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.389 of 2007.

1.2 First Appeal No.5116 of 2019, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 1.1.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.305 of 2008.

2. The short facts of applicants' case are that on 06/11/2006, the deceased Jivrajbhai Jivabhai Bhutabhai and other passengers were going for Pilgrimage in Bus No.GJ-5U8944 of different places of India and Nepal. That when the said Bus reached within the jurisdiction of village Bharatpur of Nepal, at that time, the driver of Bus No.GJ-5U-8944 has driven the bus at an excessive speed, rashly and negligent, so as to endanger human life and dashed with the regional bus and caused the accident, as a result of which, the deceased had sustained sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. It is the say of the applicants that the accident has taken place due to sole negligent driving of the driver of Bus No.GJ-5U-8944.

2.1 Legal heirs of deceased Jivrajbhai @ Jivabhai Bhutabhai have filed this claim petition No. 389 of 2007 to get compensation against the opponents jointly and severally for Rs.4,00,000/- with running interest @ 18% per annum u/s 166 of the MV Act. The learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,64,000/- with 9% interest.

2.2 Legal heirs of deceased Kantaben Chanabhai Sorathiya have filed claim petition No.305 of 2008 to get compensation against the opponents jointly and severally for Rs.5,00,000/- u/ s 166 of the MV Act. The learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/- with 9% interest.

2.3 The appellant – insurance company have filed First Appeals for complete exoneration on the ground that vehicle involved in the road accident was plying outside geographical area of India.

3. Since common question of law and fact arises, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, both the appeals are decided together.

4. The issue, which is involved in the First Appeals is that as to whether the insurance company should be liable to pay compensation if the road accident is taken place outside the geographical area of India? In present case, accident took place in Nepal. In such fact situation, whether the insurance company should be held liable to pay compensation?

5. Learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood for the appellant raises solitary contention that the road accident took place outside the geographical area of India. He would further submit that the insurance company in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has specifically stated in general exception that the insurance company shall not be liable to pay compensation if the road accident took place outside the geographical area of India. He heavily pressed upon words “geographical area of India” stated in the insurance policy and submitted that general exception denied the insurance company to satisfy the liability of the owner, if the vehicle is plying outside the geographical area of India and met with an accident. He has referred to the insurance policy and its terms and conditions, which is available on record at various exhibit