United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs R. Subramanyan Potti and Others

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The insurance company is in appeal, challenging the sustainability of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, fixing the liability solely on the appellant/insurer of a private Ambassador car by which the deceased was travelling at the relevant time without any wider coverage under a policy. Allegedly the accident occurred when the car while crossing an unmanned level cross, hit a train causing fatal injuries leading to the death of the passenger. In the award, the negligence on the part of the railway has been given go-bye. However, this is not seriously challenged in this appeal.

The appellant''s challenge is now limited against fixing of liability towards the deceased who was travelling by the private car under an Act only Policy issued by the appellant in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, .

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant was not resisted at the Bar by the opposite side. We have perused the impugned award.

By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,18,000/- as compensation to the dependents of the deceased. However, the liability to pay the sum was fixed on the insurance company on the basis of the Policy issued by them. The learned Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award against the insurance company as the copy of the Policy was not produced by the appellant insurance company before the learned Tribunal.

During the course of the argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a copy of the Policy has been produced here to be admitted in evidence along with a petition to receive the same. It is produced as Annexure-A1. As there is no opposition, the same is allowed to be marked as Ext.B1.

Ext. B1 would go to show that it was an Act only Policy which does not extend to passengers of the vehicle covered by the said Policy.

We see force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal was not justified in fixing liability to pay compensation on the appellant. Hence, the impugned award calls for interference. While upholding the amount awarded by the learned tribunal, we make it clear that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as the Policy issued by them did not extend to the passengers in the vehicle involved in the accident.

In the result the Appeal is allowed and the award is modified as above. The amount of pre-deposit, if any, shall be returned to the appellant insurance company.