Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—The defect pointed out in the cross-objection is waived.

2. These two matters, one - SBCMA No.2143/2007 has been filed by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation and for setting aside the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, District Karauli in award dated 1/3/2007, whereby it has exonerated respondent No.2-The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant and another – SB Civil Cross Objection No.98/2011 has been filed by the owner seeking similar direction to the insurance company to make payment of compensation jointly and severally.

3. Contention of Shri Vinay Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant is that amount of compensation is towards the lower side and finding of the learned Tribunal exonerating the respondent insurance company from its liability to pay compensation is liable to be set-aside.

4. Somewhat similar contention of Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector owner is that the learned Tribunal has erred in law while absolving the respondent-Insurance Company from the liability of making payment of compensation to the claimant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant-owner cited the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager, United Insurance Co.Ltd. (The) vs. M.Laxmi & Ors. : MACD 2008 (SC) 418 to argue that policy in the present case being the package policy therefore, in view of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, the respondent-insurance company has to be held liable to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation.

5. I have heard heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award and the case law cited on the subject.

6. The Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Sood And Another vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar And Others : (1998) 3 SCC 744 = RLW 1998(2) SC 229 held that in a case of comprehensive insurance policy, the terms of the contract of insurance can be wider than prescribed by the statute. If under the policy insurer agreeing to indemnify the insured against all sums, which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to "any person", the words 'any person' would include gratuitous passenger. In part 8 of the report, Supreme Court held, as under:-

"Thus under Section II(1)(a) of the policy the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to "any person". The expression "any person" would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. The remaining part of clause (a) relates to cases of death or injury arising out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. In such cases the liability of the insurer is only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Act. Insofar as gratuitous passengers are concerned there is no limitation in the policy as such. Hence under the terms of the policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimant. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the High Court in this case as the terms of the policy are unambiguous."

7. This issue cropped up before the Delhi High Court in Yashpal Luthra and Anr. vs. United India Insur. Co.Ltd. and Anr. arising out of Mac.App.No.176/2009 decided on 9/12/2009, wherein it was noted by the High Court that tariff as well as terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy was regulated by Tariff Advisory Committee (for short, "TAC") till 31/12/2006 and thereafter by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short, "IRDA") under the Insurance Act, 1938. TAC issued a Circular dated 18/3/1978 to all the Insurance Companies to cover the risk of occupants in a private car under comprehensive policy w.e.f. 25/3/1977. TAC vide then subsequent Circular dated 2/6/1986 directed all the Insurance Companies to cover the risk

Click Here to Read the rest of this document