IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
Ummalimma (Deceased, Lr's Recorded) - Respondent
MACA No. 1640 of 2011
Decided on : 01-07-2025
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A - Liability of insurer under an 'act only' policy - The deceased, a gratuitous passenger, is not covered under the policy, leading to the insurer's non-liability for compensation - Tribunal's finding that the deceased was a third party is erroneous. (Paras 9 , 10 , 11 )
(B) Insurance - Coverage under policy - The insurer's liability is confined to third parties, and no additional premium was paid for passengers, thus no compensation is payable. (Paras 8 , 9 )
Facts of the case:
The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased Ibrahim Haji, claimed compensation after the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a car accident caused by the negligent driving of the vehicle. The tribunal awarded compensation against the insurer.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's direction to the insurer to pay compensation was found to be legally unsustainable as the deceased was not covered under the 'act only' policy.
Issues: Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers in an 'act only' policy?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an 'act only' policy does not cover gratuitous passengers unless an additional premium is paid, thus the insurer is not liable for compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed; tribunal's order set aside.
JUDGMENT :
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.463 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, challenging the liability to pay compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of the deceased Ibrahim Haji. The respondents 1 to 8 herein were the claimants; and respondents 9 &10 herein were the respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimants was that on 13.07.2008, while the deceased along with his family members was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-12N-9927 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the car overturned twice or thrice, whereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimants, and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.1,29,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging its liability to pay compensation.
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1-8/claimants.
5. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Ibrahim Haji. The driver of the offending car was the son of the deceased.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that before the tribunal, a specific contention was taken that Ext.B1 policy was an “act only” policy and the deceased, being a gratuitous passenger in the car, was not covered by the policy and the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The tribunal, however, found that though the policy was an “act only” policy, the deceased, who was a gratuitous passenger, was a third party, and accordingly, granted compensation to the claimants against the insurer. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer relied on a catena of decisions such as, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Another [(2013) 1 SCC 731], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni & Another [2009) 8 SCC 785], Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran [2008 (2) KLT 936 (SC)] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul & Another [2021 (2) KHC 449], and argued that since the policy is “act only” policy, there is no liability for the insurer to indemnify the insured and to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased submitted that since there was a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, the insurer is liable to pay compensation and then to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul & Another [2013 KHC 4013] and Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kr. Singh and others [2017 KHC 6151].
8. The question to be considered is whether any liability can be thrust upon the insurer to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers in a private car if the policy issued is an “act only” policy.
9. A perusal of Ext.B1 policy shows that it is an “act only”
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Another
An 'act only' insurance policy does not cover gratuitous passengers, thus the insurer is not liable for compensation.
Insurance companies can be directed to satisfy awarded sums for gratuitous passengers and seek recovery from insured parties.
Insurance policies covering third-party liability do not extend to gratuitous passengers; however, the doctrine of 'pay and recover' allows insurers to compensate claimants and recover from the vehic....
Insurers can be directed to pay compensation for gratuitous passengers if additional premiums are paid, despite an Act only policy limiting liability.
An 'Act only policy' does not cover the risk of bodily injury to non-fare paying passengers unless the requisite premium is paid to cover their risk.
Liability of insurers for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles established through the 'pay and recover' principle.
Insurers are not liable for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles as they are not covered under policy terms, affirming the 'pay and recover' principle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a 'Statutory Policy' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only covers death or bodily injury of a third party falling within the sweep of Secti....
The Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover it from the insured. However, these decisions were rendered in cases falling within sweep of Section 149 of Act ? cases involving violation of po....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.