The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the Insurance Company under an 'Act Policy' does not extend to the risk of occupants/passengers in a vehicle unless additional premium is paid to cover their risk.

JUDGMENT :

1. National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of Award dated 4th March 2016, given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shopian (“Tribunal” for short) on a Claim Petition, bearing File no.23, titled Jamal Master and another v. Mohd. Altaf Wani and others, on the grounds mentioned in the Appeal.

2. Heard and considered.

3. A claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, as is discernible from perusal of file, was filed by claimants (respondents 1&2) before the Tribunal, stating that on 25th March 2010, one Ishwander Singh – respondent no.5 herein, who was driving vehicle bearing Registration no.JK03-5571, and coming to Shopian via Pulwama, on reaching near Drangbal, Pampore, met with an accident while said car struck with an electric pole and deceased received grave heard injuries and succumbed thereto. FIR no.54/2020 in police station Pampore was in this regard registered. Respondents 4&5 filed their written statement in opposition to claim petition. Appellant Insurance Company also filed its objections, especially insisting therein that offending vehicle had been insured for third party insurance cover and had not covered passengers (occupants of car) and therefore, in absence of any contract qua coverage of occupants of car, Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured (owner of vehicle).

4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed following seven Issues for adjudication :

(1) Whether the deceased Nizam-u-Din died at Pampore while being struck by Maruti Car no.JK03/5571 when respondent no.5 was on wheels and driving vehicle? OPP

(2) Whether respondent no.1 is its owner and respondent no.2 is possessory owner of vehicle no.JK03/5571? OPP

(3) Whether respondent no.3 was driving vehicle at relevant time when accident occurred due to negligence of driver? OPP

(4) In case Issues 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to any compensation, how much and from whom? OPP

(5) Whether the petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction? OPR4

(6) Whether petition is not maintainable as passenger/occupant is not covered under the policy of insurance? OPR4

(7) Whether petition merits dismissal as respondent driver was not holding a valid and effective D/L? OPR4

5. Claimants and appellant Insurance company adduced witnesses in support of their respective stand.

6. The Tribunal, while deciding Issue no.4 as regards third party insurance policy, held Insurance Company liable to pay compensation.

7. The case in hand revolves around the question as to whether appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured (owner of offending vehicle) in the event vehicle is covered under third party insurance, or say “Act Policy” only. In this regard submission of learned senior counsel for appellant Insurance Company is that no doubt Insurance Company had issued policy in respect of offending vehicle, but said policy was an “Act Policy”, covering only statutory risk under provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the risk of passengers or inmates of vehicle was not covered.

Therefore, the Tribunal could not have fastened liability on Insurance Company. He has also contended that liability was solely on owner of offending vehicle in absence of there being any coverage of risk of occupants/ passengers of vehicle in question. In this regard learned senior counsel appearing for appellant Insurance Company has placed reliance on judgements of the Supreme Court rendered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others, AIR 2006 SC 1576; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. and others, AIR 2008 SC 2729; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bismillah Bai and others, 2009 (5) SCC 112; Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kr. Singh and others, 2017 (4) SCC 796, to contend that risk of a pillion rider of a motorcycle as well as inmate of a car is not covered under an Act Policy, and only if an additional premi