Honble SRINIVASAN, J.–On August 25, 1970, the fiat car owned by the second appellant collided with a goods carrier on Shimla- Kalka National Highway near Kandaghat Post Office. The car was being driven by the first appellant, a brother of the second appellant. The car was insured with the fifth respondent. Kishan Sarup Thapar, an advocate of Chandigarh who was travelling in the car got injured and was hospitalised for some time. He approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan and Srimur Districts claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The owners and drivers of both the vehicles as well as the insurers were impleaded as parties. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car and passed an award for Rs. 15,800/- against the appellants and the fifth res- pondent herein. The claimant filed an appeal in the High Court claiming more compensation while the insurer (5th respondent), filed an appeal disputing its liability to satisfy the claim. The claimants appeal was allowed by a learned Judge in part and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.20,800/-. The learned Judge held that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the car and the insurer was therefore not liable.

(2). That judgment was assailed in two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the legal representatives of the claimant and another by the driver of the vehicle who is the first appellant herein. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the 1st appellant confirming the view of the single Judge that the insurer is not liable as the claimant was only a passenger in the vehicle. In the other appeal, the Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs. 56,600/-. The driver and the owner of the car have preferred these appeals on special leave.

(3). The question to be decided is whether the insurer, is liable to satisfy the claim for-compensation made by a person travelling gratuitously in the car. The factual findings are not in dispute before us but for the contention of the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the Division Bench is excessive. We have no difficulty in repelling that contention as we find the materials on record to be sufficient to support the award of enhanced compensation.

(4). The liability of the insurer in this case depends on the terms of the contract between the insured and the insurer as evident from the policy. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 compels the owner of a motor vehicle to insure the vehicle in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 95 of the Act provides that a policy of insurance must be one which insures the person against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place . The section does not however require a policy to cover the risk to passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. The statutory insurance does not cover injury suffered by occupants of the vehicle who are not carried for hire or reward and the insurer cannot be held liable under the Act. But that does not prevent an insurer from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby the risk to gratuitous passengers could also be covered. In such cases where the policy is not merely a statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered to determine the liability of the insurer.

(5). In the present case, the policy is admittedly a Comprehensive policy. `Comprehensive insurance has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edition as All risk insurance which in turn is defined as follows:-

``Type of insurance policy which ordinarily covers every loss that may happen, except by fraudulent acts of the insured. Miller vs. Boston Ins. Co. 218 A.2d 275, 278, 420 Pa.566. Type of policy which protects against all risks and perils e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document