RAFIQ, J.—For stated reasons, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act stands allowed. Matter is heard on merits.

2. This appeal has been filed by non-claimant Jai Krishna Pareek for quashment of award dated 03.08.2007 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in MAC Case No.9/2005, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- to claimant in a death case, and held the insurance company liable to pay only Rs.1,00,000/- and, for remaining amount, appellant, who was driver and owner of offending vehicle, is held liable for payment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant has contended that learned Tribunal has erred in law while restricting liability of insurance company to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only, whereas as per the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. (The) vs. M. Laxmi & Ors. : MACD 2008 (SC) 418 = 2009(1) CCR 119 (SC) when there is package policy as in the present case, the insurance company has to be held liable to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation jointly and severally. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed and accordingly that finding of the Tribunal be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing respondents however opposed the appeal but could not controvert the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in M. Laxmi supra.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award and 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 com-prehensive 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 of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the comprehensive policy. Comprehensive policy was later styled as “package policy”. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case summoned all the insurance companies, which admitted their liability to inde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document