The Motor Vehicles Act does not mandate insurers to provide comprehensive insurance policies for old vehicles, and insurers have the discretion to refuse such policies based on underwriting guidelines.

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions, since common question of law and facts are involved the same are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the decision of the respondents Insurance Company communicated vide 17-3-2003 and 13-5-2003 whereby the Insurance Company refused to Issue comprehensive insurance policy in respect of the commercial vehicles owned and possessed by the petitioners.

( 3 ) IN W. P. C. No. 4231 of 2003 petitioners case is that he owned and possessed commercial vehicle bearing registration No. UP-65a-6243 having been registered by the motor Vehicle Department, Varanasi in the name of petitioner. Vehicle was lastly comprehensively insured on 28-5-2003 for a period from 29-5-2002 to 28-5-2003 being estimated value of the vehicle Rs. 3,30,000/- While the policy was to be expired on 28-5-2003 petitioner sent proposal form along with a cheque of Rs. 11",771/- for the renewal of his insurance policy. The respondents by the impugned letter dated 13-5-2003 informed the petitioner that they are unable to insure his vehicle comprehensively as a new policy decision has been taken not to renew such old vehicles and consequently papers along with cheques were returned to the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN W. P. C. No. 2279 of 2003, the case of the petitioner, Smt. Sulochana Devi is that she is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. BEY 3611. She purchased the vehicle in 2002 and her name was transferred on 9-10-2002. The vehicle was earlier comprehensively insured in the name of erstwhile owner Baijnath Agarwal for the period up to 26-3-2003, She also sent Bank draft of Rs. 11. 734/- for renewal of comprehensive insurance of the vehicle which was refused by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 17-3-2003.

( 5 ) THE respondents/insurance Company filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the Insurance Company is not bound to provide comprehensive policy in respect of the old vehicles of more than 10 years. In the instant case vehicles are of more than 10-14 years old and as per the Circular dated 21-1-97 the Company has decided to give comprehensive policy to TATA and LEYLAND trucks only to those vehicles who are up to 7 years old and for other types of trucks 5 years only. Besides the above, respondents further case is that on inquiry respondents learnt that petitioners and their family members filed different cases at different consumer Forum, Hazaribagh and they are in the habit of purchasing old vehicles and raising claim against the Insurance Company. It is alleged that the petitioner Shambhu nath Agrawal is the acting President of Consumer Forum and he is by profession advocate and the proprietor of M/s. Mithilesh industries. Chiranjee Lal Agarwal is father and Baijnath Agarwal is younger brother of the petitioner. It Is further alleged that petitioner and his family members filed different cases before the Consumer Forum being case Nos. 43/2000. 77/98, 1/2002, 5/99 and 44 of 2000. It is contended by the respondents that the Oriental Insurance company has also refused to provide comprehensive policy to the petitioner and his family members in respect of the old commercial vehicles.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that refusal to insure the vehicles comprehensively by the Insurance company is in the teeth of the provisions of section 147 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel submitted that under the Insurance Act the Insurance companies are bound to insure vehicle comprehensively on payment of premium fixed by them and they cannot refuse to insure the vehicles on the ground of any policy decision. The denial by the Insurance Company to insure vehicles comprehensively is violative of provisions of Insurance laws and article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. D. C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that although Insurance Companies are the instrumentality of the Govt.