Back
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by its Divisional Manager – Appellant
Vs.
Bindu Das and Ors. – Respondents
MAC APP. NO.80 of 2010
Decided On : 29.5.2015
Insurance - Liability of Insurance Company - Coverage of passengers in private car
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a claim petition stating that her husband died in a car accident while traveling as a passenger in a Maruti Van. The insurance company of the Maruti Van appealed, arguing that they were not liable for the deceased as he was a passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the insurance policy and found that it specifically covered the liability in respect of gratuitous passengers, with no evidence that the deceased had paid any fare for traveling in the vehicle. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Liability of insurance company for passengers in a private car
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the insurance policy to conclude that the insurance company was liable for the deceased as a gratuitous passenger in the private car.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability of the insurance company for passengers in the private car.
Yesterday when this case was called none had appeared for the appellant and it was ordered that the case shall be listed today and again if nobody is present for the insurance company the appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits. Today also none is present.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition claiming that her husband was travelling in ‘Maruti Van’ bearing Registration No.TR-02-A-0402 which met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. According to the claimant, the Maruti Van dashed into a stationary ‘Truck’ bearing Registration No.TR-01-D-1659. The deceased was taken to various hospitals both inside the state of Tripura and also to Calcutta. Unfortunately, the husband died at Calcutta and thereafter the dead body had to be flown to Agartala for the funeral rites. The learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,92,882/-.
3. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company of the Maruti Van and the main ground which has been raised is that since the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle the insurance company is not liable.
4. I have gone through the policy and the policy is a package policy of a private car. It does not in any manner indicate that the insurance company is not liable in respect of passengers being carried in this private car. In fact the policy contains a clause that the company will indemnify the insured in respect of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward).
5. Therefore, the policy specifically covers the liability in respect of gratuitous passengers. There is no evidence worth the name that the deceased had paid any fare for travelling in the vehicle. As such I find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
