AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since the identical question of law is involved in all these appeals titled above hence, are being taken up together for adjudication notwithstanding AO Nos. 560/2016, 569/2016 & 568/2016 have arisen out of an accident dated 27.6.2012 with Maruti Van Omni (8 seater) bearing no. DL-2C-N-1446 skidded off from the road causing the accident, wherein the persons seated inside the vehicle either lost their life or injured. Master Vikram Kumar @ Vickky was seriously injured in the accident, the AO No. 57/2015 pertains to an accident occurred on 19.9.2013 where a Maruti 800 Alto bearin no. UP29-0051 skidded off from the road in District Champawat, where on Smt. Maya Devi, seated inside the vehicle, lost her life.
So, the descendants/injured preferred their respective petitions before the learned Tribunal claiming the compensation and the learned Tribunal vide a single judgment dated 14.9.2016 granted the compensation in each of the three petitions and such judgment has been put up to challenge by the insurer by way of filing these three appeals. In appeal no. 57/2015, the learned Tribunal rendered his judgment on 25.11.2014 and granted the compensation to the descendants of the deceased Smt. Maya Devi.
I have taken up all these appeals together for the reason that the identical question of law has involved which will adjudicate the fate of all these appeals.
The Maruti Van Omni was insured w.e.f. 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012 which covers the period of accident while Maruti 800 Alto was insured w.e.f. 30.10.2012 to 29.10.2013. It also covers the period of accident. The only question is that the Maruti Van Omni was got insured by way of paying the third party premium to the tune of Rs. 765/- while Maruti 800 Alto was got insured by paying the third party premium to the tune of Rs. 934/-. So, the learned counsel of the Insurance Company has argued that the insurer cannot be held liable for the persons which have been seated inside the vehicle at the time of accident. He has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 731, wherein the issue has been dealt widely by the Hon''ble Apex Court and it was held that:
An "Act policy" stands on a different footing from a "comprehensive/package policy". As the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), which is presently the statutory regulatory authority, has commanded the insurance companies that a "comprehensive/package policy covers the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation to the occupant in a motor vehicle, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. The earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of an "Act policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third- party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "comprehensive/package policy", the liability would be covered. IRDA has clarified the position by issuing Circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009. Therefore, a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car.
In such Balakrishnan case, it was specifically stated to be a "comprehensive policy" but even then the Hon''ble Apex Court was of the view that since it was not a package policy hence, the matter was remitted to the learned Tribunal to determine the said issue in light of the circulars of the statutory regulatory authority presently IRDA dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009.
In both these matters involved herein, there is nowhere mentioned that this policy was comprehensive in nature but the nature of the policies in both the mattes is only the Act policy which makes it compulsory to get the vehicle registered for the third party. Third party means the party who is traveling or roaming or walking on the road and for no faults of him he losses his life or suffers the injury by the vehicle coming from in front or behind.
The persons who are sitting inside the vehicle do either belong to the family of the vehicle owner or at the most they are gratuitous passengers and they accepted their sitting inside the vehicle at their own risk. So, the insurer cannot be held liable at all if the policy is only third party policy or the Act policy.
In view of what has been set forth above, all the four appeals are hereby allowed. The judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal are set aside and award is quashed in all the matters.
The amount which is lying deposited in the High Court including the compulsory statutory deposit shall be remitted back to the learned Tribunal along with the interest accrued thereon to be returned the appellant- Insurance Company.
LCR be sent back.