The insurance policy terms dictate liability for occupant injuries; liability under an Act Policy is valid if occupant coverage premiums are paid.

1. By way of this application, the respondent No. 2/insurance company seeks to place on record Policy Schedule (Annexure A-1) and terms and conditions of the policy (Annexure A-2). It is stated in the application that during evidence before learned Tribunal below, incorrect terms and conditions of policy (Exhibit RW-1/B) were exhibited, which, in fact, were of ‘comprehensive policy’ and not of ‘Act Policy’.

2. Respondents/appellants have filed reply to the said application stating therein that respondent No. 2 has not challenged the award and as such, application is not maintainable, Order 41 rule 27 CPC, vests right with the appellant to place on record additional documents/evidence. Respondents/appellants have also stated that the application has been filed at a belated stage, i.e. at the stage of arguments. For comparison, the appellants have annexed Annexure R-1/A, which is a private car package policy, to show that no extra premium was deducted to cover third party liability and only basic premium qua third party cover has been charged. It has been denied that while tendering Exhibit RW-1/B, the concerned officer of the insurance company, wrongly tendered policy/terms and conditions of a package policy.

3. Though the application at hand has been resisted by tooth and nail by the respondents/appellants, on aforesaid grounds, but keeping in view the controversy involved in the appeal, this court deems it fit to take on record the documents Annexure A-1 and A-2, as they would help this court adjudicate the controversy in an effective manner.

4. Consequently, in view of the above, present application is allowed and Annexure A-1 and A-2 i.e. policy schedule and the terms and conditions of policy are ordered to be taken on record. Application stands accordingly disposed of. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid Annexure are being taken on record just for the sake of comparison.

F.A.O. (MVA) No. 104 of 2019

5. By way of present appeal filed under S.173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act’) the appellants, who were respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘appellants’) in MAC Petition No. 59-S/2 of 2013, filed by respondent No. 1/petitioner (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘claimant’) have laid challenge to the Award dated 21.3.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal below, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 21,36,762/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the amount, besides Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses, to be paid by the appellants, jointly and severally.

6. Summary of facts is that on 25.2.2012, claimant was travelling in Car bearing registration No. HP-15-9434 being driven by respondent No. 2. While returning from a marriage function at Village Banasar, at about 8.30 pm, when claimant reached near Village Sanwli, the vehicle met with an accident, as a result of which, claimant sustained multiple injuries and remained under treatment at ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, from where he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. The claimant is stated to have suffered 100% permanent disability rendering him incapable of performing his daily routine activities and pursuits, in which he was engaged. Averments contained in the petition reveal that the claimant was self-employed and working as a Plumber. Claimant claimed to have been earning Rs. 25,000/- per month by working as a Plumber and Rs. 50,000/- from agriculture. Besides this, claimant claimed to have spent Rs. 1,50,000/