Insurance policy terms must be honored despite circumstances, and re-marriage of a widow does not negate her right to compensation, providing clarity on dependency and insurance liability.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. All these appeals are arising out of the common impugned award dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court, Communal Riots), Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). Hence, these appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order, at the joint request of the counsel for the parties.

2. Two appeals i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 4902/2018 & 4903/2018 have been preferred by the Insurance Company against the impugned award and other two appeals i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 4804/2018 & 4843/2018 have been submitted by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, awarded by the Tribunal.

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 4902/2018 & 4903/2018

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle in question was a goods transport vehicle and the same was insured with the Insurance Company and premium for three persons i.e. driver, owner and khalasi was paid by the registered owner and the same was accepted by the Insurance Company. Counsel submits that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was carrying more than fifteen passengers and no premium for these passengers was paid by the registered owner of the vehicle. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there was a breach of policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any sort of compensation to the claimants but ignoring these material facts, the Tribunal has passed the impugned award directing the Insurance Company to pay different compensation amounts to the claimants. Counsel further submits that when the statement of the witnesses were recorded before the Tribunal, this fact has been established that more than fifteen persons were travelling in the subject vehicle, in the capacity of passengers. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company and submits that the document (Insurance Policy) Exhibit-13 indicates that it was a full package policy i.e Legal Liability To Non Fare Paying Passengers (for short “LLTNFPP”) and premium of Rs. 150/- was charged by the Insurance Company for six persons. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Insurance Company is legally bound to pay compensation to at least six persons in case, the vehicle meets with any accident. Counsel submits that in the instant case, also two claim petitions have been submitted by the claimants of the deceased. Hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in a batch of Civil Misc. Appeals with the lead case being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 230/2000 titled as Mahesh Kumar and Anr. V/s Om Prakash and Anr. , decided on 24.10.2017. Hence under these circumstances, the appeals submitted by the Insurance Company are not having merit and substance and the same are liable to be rejected.

5. Counsel further submits that even the witness NAW1- Arjun Lal, produced by the Insurance Company, has admitted the factual aspect of the matter with regard to the payment of premium for six persons and he has also admitted in cross-examination that six persons are covered under the policy.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and peru