Insurance policies for private vehicles cover occupants without requiring separate premium payments, as per statutory provisions and regulatory circulars.

J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The appellant/insurance company filed this appeal “challenging the liability”.

2.The first respondent filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.27 of

2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. In the said petition, he stated that he was working as Electrician. On 28.08.2012, at about 02.15 p.m., when he was travelling in the car bearing Registration No.TN 50 C 1323 on Karur to Salem Four way road, the driver of the said car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the centre Median and went off to the other side of the road and collided with on coming opposite car bearing Registration No.59 AS 3694 and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury in his right leg, right shoulder, right arm and right side hip. Immediately, he was admitted in the hospital and in the hospital, his right leg below knee was amputated and after taking continuous treatment, he filed the claim petition seeking the said compensation. He also averred that the Velayutham Police Officials registered the case in Crime No.390 of 2012 under Section 279, 337 of IPC, against the driver of the said car bearing Registration No.TN 50 C 1323. He also impleaded the first respondent as the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent as the insurer of the vehicle.

3.The first respondent, owner of the vehicle filed a counter stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle and one Mr.R.Kumar, is the owner of the vehicle. He also disputed the manner of the accident as pleaded by the claimant. He also disputed the monthly earning of the claimant.

4.The second respondent insurance company filed a counter and denied the liability. They also disputed the income and the compensation amount claimed under the various heads. The vehicle was private vehicle and the same was used for commercial purpose. Therefore, they seek for dismissal of claim petition against the insurance company.

5.To prove the claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of second respondent, three witnesses have been examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and exhibited Ex.R.1 insurance policy was marked. The Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were also marked. Even though, the owner of the vehicle filed a counter denying his ownership, he did not let in any evidence.

6.The learned Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, held that the driver of the car had not possessed valid license and hence, the learned Tribunal Judge is directed the insurance company to pay the amount and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal judge also considered the amputation of leg of the claimant and his other grievous injuries and also considering the 80% disability certificate given by the competent medical Board and the nature of the work namely, Electrician, calculated his monthly income as Rs.9,100/- and applied the multiplier method and calculated the other headings and awarded total compensation of Rs.18,36,160/- with 7.5 %

of interest by passing the impugned award.

7.Challenging the same, the insurance company filed this appeal before this Court questioning the liability alone.

8.The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that without payment of separate premium to the occupant of the car, the liability fixed upon the insurance company on the basis of the policy marked Ex.R.1, is not legally valid and hence, he seeks for the exoneration of the appellant insurance company. The learned counsel has not disputed the quantum.

9.The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the insurance company has not raised any plea regarding the above payment of premium before the Tribunal. Even though R.W.1 was examined on the side of the insurance company to substantiate said pleading, he admitted that the deceased was third party. Under the policy, all