The insurer is liable to indemnify for occupant injuries under an 'Act Only Policy' if the policy explicitly covers such cases, and compensation must reflect the deceased's actual income and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as these arise from the same award.

2. A Maruti Car bearing Registration No. HP-12B-0532, owned by Sh. Kamal Kishore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’), met with an accident near Tribal Bhawan, Dhalli, District Shimla on 8.7.2012.The vehicle went off the road and rolled down into about 150 feet deep gorge.At the time of accident, the said vehicle was occupied by four occupants including the driver named Vijay Thakur. The said Vijay Thakur (driver) and Amarjeet Singh (occupant of front passenger seat) died as result of accident. The other occupants of the vehicle survived.

3. The deceased Amar Jeet Singh was survived by his wife, three children and mother as legal heirs and dependents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimants’). A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) was filed on their behalf, which came to be registered as MAC Petition RBT No. 103-S/2 of 2014/12 on the files of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). The claimants had alleged that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of Vijay Thakur (driver).

4. It was claimed that deceased was working as a Motor Mechanic (Electrician) at Dhalli, Shimla and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from his business. The deceased was stated to be 51 years old at the time of death. It was also the case of the claimants that they were totally dependents upon the deceased and had no other independent source of income.

5. The owner filed reply and denied the rash and negligent driving of Vijay Thakur to be the cause of accident. It was claimed that the vehicle was insured with the insurer (appellant in FAO No. 57 of 2017).

6. The insurer also filed a separate reply and raised objections that it was not liable to indemnify the insured, as the insured had purchased an “Act Only Policy”, which did not cover the occupants of the vehicle. It was also contended that Vijay Thakur, driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in violation of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). All other averments in the petition were also denied generally.

7. Learned Tribunal framed following issues:-

“i) Whether Amar Jeet had died in a road side accident on 8.7.2012 at about 12.40 PM at place near Tribal Bhawan and Post Office Dhalli, Shimla in a vehicle bearing No. HP-12B-0532 involved in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver as alleged? OPP

ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to and what should be the quantum of compensation and form whom? OPP

iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-2

iv) Whether the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-1

v) Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing HP-12B-0532 was not possessing the valid and effective driving license as alleged? OPR-2

vi) Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of Motor Vehicle Act as alleged? OPR-1

vii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties as alleged? OPR-4

viii) Relief.”

8. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative and all other issues were decided in negative.

9. Accordingly, the petition has been allowed and the claimants have been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,58,600/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.

10. The liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the insurer.

11. The insurer has challenged the impugned award by way of FAO No. 57 of 2017. It is contended that the fastening of liability on the insurer in an ‘Act Only Policy’ is against the terms of the policy and the settled proposition of law. It is been submitted that the learned Tribunal has overlooked the violation of