Personal accident coverage under a Motor Vehicle policy is limited to the registered owner; non-owners cannot claim coverage.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the Exhibit-P4 Order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services on a complaint submitted by the respondents 1 to 5 herein.

2. The dispute involved in the Original Petition, which led to Exhibit-P4, was relating to the repudiation of a claim based on the Personal Accident Coverage in the Motor Vehicle policy issued by the petitioner. The case relates to the death of the husband of the 1^st respondent in a motor accident, that occurred on 24.04.2024, while he was riding the motor cycle owned by the 1^st respondent herein.

3. According to the respondents, the accident occurred when the motorcycle collided with a stage carriage driven in a rash and negligent manner. The respondents approached the petitioner seeking personal accident coverage contemplated as per the policy in respect of the said motor cycle, which was declined by the petitioner, on the ground that, the said coverage is applicable only to owner cum driver and in this case, as the deceased rider of the motor cycle was not the owner of the motor cycle, the coverage cannot be extended to the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the respondents submitted the original petition which ultimately resulted in Exhibit-P4 wherein the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services rejected the contentions of the petitioner by placing reliance upon various decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court including Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another (2020 KHC 6008). The same is under challenged in this writ petition.

5. The main contention of the petitioner that, the Personal Accident Coverage contemplated in the motor vehicle policy is strictly confined to the rider, who is the registered owner/policy holder and the same cannot be extended to any other person who is riding the vehicle, irrespective of the question whether he was riding the motor cycle with the authorization of the registered owner or not.

6. In fact, the same question was considered by this Court in WP(C) No.40506/2025 ( United India and Insurance Co. Ltd v. Lakshmy and others ) and after considering the same contentions raised by the petitioner therein and also taking note of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi’s case (supra) and this Court in Kunjila v. Mary (2024 KHC 219), the observations and findings of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services in the impugned order therein were upheld.

7. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.40506/2025 following the observations in Ramkhiladi’s case and Kunjila’s case, I am of the view that no interference in the impugned order can be made.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as no inference is warranted in the impugned order.

Sd/-