An Act Only Policy does not cover co-passengers unless additional premium is paid, and contributory negligence applies in accidents involving parked vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. C.M.A(MD)No.1415 of 2016 and C.M.A(MD)No.1416 of 2016 have been filed by the the first respondent/owner of the vehicle against the award passed in M.A.C.O.P.Nos.246 and 268 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court/Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thoothukudi, dated 29.01.2013, thereby allowing both the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.37,59,796/- and Rs.6,24,931/- respectively.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A(MD)No.1415 of 2016 and the first respondent in C.M.A(MD)No.1416 of 2016 were the claimants in their respective claim petitions. They have also filed C.M.A(MD)Nos.1798 and 2052 of 2013 respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the liability fastened against the owner of the vehicle.

3. Since all the appeals arise out of the same award, they are disposed of by way of a common order.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in M.C.O.P.No.246 of 2010.

5. The claimants filed the claims petitions on the ground that on 30.05.2010 at about 01.10 p.m., the deceased and the injured were travelling in the first respondent's Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-8479, insured with the second respondent, from Kanniyakumari to Tirunelveli on the Nanguneri to Tirunelveli main road. When the car was proceeding towards north, near T.V.S Mill at Naguneri, the driver drove the vehicle at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear side of the third respondent's lorry, insured with the fourth respondent, which had been parked on the road without any indicator or signal. As a result, the deceased and the injured sustained multiple injuries. Immediately both were taken to Rose Mary Hospital, Tirunelveli. However, S.Maharajan succumbed due to the injuries and P.Lakshmi Sundaram took treatment as an inpatient for about 45 days. On the complaint, an F.I.R was registered in Crime No.121 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C as against the driver of the first respondent's car.

6. In order to prove their claim, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1.

7. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver. The Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the first respondent, the appellant in C.M.A(MD)Nos.1415 and 1416 of 2016, holding that the first respondent's car was covered only under an Act Only Policy and as such, the insurer of the first respondent's vehicle was not liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the owner of the car as well as the claimants have filed these appeals challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants submitted that the concept of an Act Only Policy, in the present context, is misconceived and the issue is no longer res integra and as such, the occupants travelling in the car are also entitled to compensation under an Act Only Policy.

9. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the Judgment of this Court in C.M.A. (MD) No. 557 of 2020 dated 28.08.2024, The United India Company Limited vs. Sundara Bai and others, wherein this Court held that the distinction under the caption “Act Only Policy” is misconceived. It was observed that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has prescribed a standard motor policy,