An 'Act Only' insurance policy does not cover passengers unless additional premium is paid, exonerating the insurer from liability for compensation.

ORDER

1. Instant miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/ non-claimant No.1 - Amichand (driver & owner of the offending vehicle) assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) cum Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Tribunal'), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 112/2008, titled as Smt. Bhanwari Devi & another Vs. Amichand & another, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants - Smt. Bhanwari Devi & another, under Section 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.8,89,344/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the appellant/non-claimant No.1 was held liable to pay the award amount and the respondent/insurance company was exonerated to pay any compensation.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22.02.2007 in the evening deceased - Rajendra Singh alongwith injured - Ramniwas was coming to their Village Malsiwas from Laxmangarh in a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-23-C-2459, which was being driven by its driver Amichand (appellant) in rash and negligent manner, due to which jeep lost control and dashed a tree of Khejadi and overturned. As a result of which, Ramniwas sustained injuries and Rajendra Singh died.

3. A case/F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant (driver/owner of the alleged jeep), alleging that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-23-C-2459. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal, claiming total compensation of Rs.54,48,000/- under the various heads.

4. Appellant, who is driver/owner of the jeep filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made by the claimants and further averred that the alleged accident was not occurred due to his negligence and in alternative pleaded that the jeep was insured with the respondent/insurance-company.

5. Respondent No.3/insurance-company filed reply to the claim petition and raised a specific objection for the breach of the policy condition and denied its liability.

6. On completion of pleadings, the Tribunal framed as many as three issues. On behalf of claimants, AW-1 Mohan Singh himself and AW-2 Ramniwas were examined and documents Exhibit/1 to Exhibit/51 were exhibited. Respondent No.3/insurance-company examined NAW-1 Chhote Lal and exhibited documents as NA/1 and NA/2.

7. After hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2012, awarded a sum of Rs.8,89,344/- as compensation in favour of the claimants.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/non-claimant No.1 has submitted that admittedly, the insurance-company has charged premium for the third party and the deceased and injured were fully covered within the definition of third party. Counsel has further submitted that there is no material to infer that the deceased and injured were travelling for hire or reward, therefore, they cannot be considered as passengers and in this view of the matter, when third party risk is covered, the insurance-company is liable to pay compensation. Lastly, counsel has argued that there was no breach of the policy but the insurance-company has erroneously been exonerated from its liability to pay compensation.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna Vs. Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2018) A.I.R. (S.C.) 3726.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/insurance-company, has submitted that there is only an ?act policy' and no additional premium is charged for passengers and premium is only paid for the third party. Thus, there was a breach of the in