This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

against the judgment and award dated 26.02.2013 passed

in MVC No.727/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge

and MACT, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Tribunal’ for short), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest at the rate of

3

6% p.a. in favour of the claimant by fastening liability on

the Insurance Company.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the Tribunal.

3.

As per the case of the claimant, on 16.02.2011

at about 5.00 p.m. while he was proceeding in a Jeep

bearing No.KA-32/M-1516 to his village along with others,

the jeep over turned as a result of rash and negligent

driving of the driver and the claimant suffered injuries.

Hence, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation of

Rs.10,50,000/- from the respondents.

4.

The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence has awarded compensation of

Rs.2,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the

date of petition till its realization.

4

5.

Being aggrieved by this judgment and award,

the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

6.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the

respondents and perused the records.

7.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

appellant–

Insurance Company would contend that since it is an Act

policy and no additional premium has been paid, the risk of

the inmates is not covered under the policy. He would

invite the attention of the Court towards the copy of the

policy available in the Trial Court records and also referred

para 24 of the impugned judgment.

8.

Admittedly, the policy is an Act policy. The

vehicle was Mahindra & Mahindra having Cubic Capacity of

2523. It is also evident that the premium was Rs.2,625/-

and including the Service Tax and Stamp Duty, the total

premium collected was Rs.2,895/-. The Tribunal, based on

the decision of this Court in MFA No.30201/2008 C/W

5

MFA No.6902/2008 has held that the total premium

payable was Rs.2,525/-, which is indicative of Package

policy being issued by the Insurance Company and there is

no explanation as to why additional premium had been

collected and hence, held that it is to be inferred as

Package policy which covers the risk of inmates.

9.

The learned counsel for the respondent-

claimant would also contend that for the third party claim,

the premium is only Rs.700/- and excess premium is being

collected. Hence, he argued that it is to be treated as a

Package policy in the instant case, as rightly held by the

Tribunal. In this regard, he has placed reliance on India

Motor Tariff, but it does not disclose for which year this

alleged premium of Rs.700/- is applicable. The notification

in this regard is not at all produced. Hence, the said

argument cannot be accepted.

10.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the

appellant would contend that the policy being an Act

6

policy, no liability could have been fastened on the

Insurance Company, as it can be distinguished from

Comprehensive policy. This aspect has been considered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2013)

1 SCC 731 (National Insurance Company Limited v.

Balkrishnan and another). The Hon’ble Apex Court in

the

said

decision

has

considered

the

Comprehensive/Package policy and Act policy. It is

specifically observed that Comprehensive/Package policy

would stand on entirely different footing compared to an

Act

policy.

It

is

further

observed

that

the

Comprehensive/Package policy covers the liability of the

inmates, while the Act policy cannot cover a third-party

risk of an occupant in the vehicle.

11.

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant

would contend that the Insurance Company having

collected excess premium, the policy automatically to be

considered as Comprehensive policy. This aspect has been

considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA

7

No.20