The collision coverage under the Contractors Plant and Machinery policy does not extend to motor vehicle liabilities outlined in the Motor Vehicle Act.

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company inter alia challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, so passed by the 3^rd Addl. District Judge-cum-4^th MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case No.138 of 2018. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal while allowing the claim of the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4, held the appellant-company liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.45,11,466.25/- with interest payable @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization. The Tribunal also allowed default interest @ 12% per annum in case the compensation amount is not paid, within the period of 2 (two) months from the date of award.

3. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant-company vehemently contended that taking into account the nature of policy issued by the appellant and the fact that the accident occurred beyond the area covered under the Policy, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation as awarded.

3.1. It is contended that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No.OR-04-P-3025 is a Heavy Motor Vehicle, to be more specific a Hywa Truck. It is the case of the claimants that while the deceased was looking after the road work, standing on the extreme left side of the road, the offending Truck bearing Registration No.OR-04-P-3025, came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased and accordingly the deceased died on the spot. Claimants accordingly for such death of the deceased in a road accident caused by the offending vehicle, filed the claim application in MAC No.138 of 2018, claiming compensation amount of Rs.70 lakhs.

3.2. It is contended that the policy in question was issued by the appellant covering the period from 31.03.2017 to 30.03.2018. Even though the vehicle was a Heavy Motor Vehicle (Hywa Truck) but the owner of the offending vehicle took the policy in the name and style Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy (in short CPM Policy) vide Policy No.2603044416P118073112. It is also contended that the policy in question was so issued with the location code “Parjang Dhenkanal” in the State of Odisha.

3.3. It is contended that since the policy so issued in favour of the offending Truck is a CPM Policy and it’s coverage covers the location Parjang in the district of Dhenkanal, the accident having taken place outside the location, the policy does not cover the liability, as the accident admittedly occurred beyond the location area coming under Mangalpur P.S. in the District of Jajpur.

3.4. A further submission was also made that the policy being the policy in the nature of CPM Policy, it does not cover the 3^rd Party claim arising out of the motor accident in a public road. A further submission was also made that in respect of 3^rd Party liability though the company accepted the premium of Rs.850/- but by fixing the outer limit of such 3^rd Party liability at Rs.5 lakhs. But since the accident admittedly occurred beyond the location area, the policy being the policy in the nature of CPM Policy, the appellant is not at all liable to pay any compensation amount so awarded by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment. A further submission was also made that in support of the nature of policy and its coverage, the policy was not only exhibited vide Ext-A but also the same was proved by the appellant with examination of its witness as P.W. 1.

3.5. It is also contended that the policy being the policy in the nature of a CPM Policy, is not a policy issued in favour of motor vehicle in terms of the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act , which deals with Insurance of Motor Vehicle against 3^rd Party risk.

3.6. In support of his aforesaid submission, r