Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA
New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nanak Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant-The New Indian Assurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”), against the award dated 08.08.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Claim Petition No.37/2012, with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.
2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of Sheweta Thakur, who was wife of petitioner No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and mother of petitioner No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). It was averred by the petitioners that on 25.05.2012, Sheweta Thakur (deceased) was coming to her house on the motorcycle bearing registration No.HP58A-0361, being driven by respondent No.1 (respondent No.3 herein) and when the said motorcycle reached near Kai Gompa, respondent No.1 lost control over the same due to his rash and negligent driving and met with an accident, as a result of which, Sheweta Thakur sustained injuries
Act policy excludes coverage for pillion rider on two-wheeler as gratuitous passenger; LMV (NT) licence invalid for motorcycle; insurer exonerated, owner liable for compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the risk of the pillion rider cannot be covered under the 'Act Only Policy' without any extra premium.
An act only policy under the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover the risk of a pillion rider, and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for injuries sustained by a pillion rider.
Insurance liability under a 'Liability only Policy' does not extend to cover claims for injuries or deaths of gratuitous passengers, including pillion riders.
An 'Act Only Policy' does not cover pillion riders unless additional premium is paid, and such riders cannot be treated as third parties under the insurance policy in the context of liability for acc....
The court ruled that an insurance company must substantiate the terms of an 'act only' policy; failing which, the insurer is liable to compensate for injuries including those of a pillion rider.
Point of law: It must be remarked that the claimant has not raised any issue about the finding on the point of contributory negligence and apportionment of liability between the two vehicles, to wit,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
