Skip to main content

A comprehensive policy would cover liability of insurer for payment of compensation for occupant in car

In Sheela Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., First Appeal Nos. 1523 of 2008, 648 of 2009, a vehicle carrying several passengers met with an accident and the injured/claimants filed claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation towards various heads while the appellant - owner and respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that there was no reason for the claimants to sit unauthorisedly in the private car and therefore, owner and Insurance Company are not liable. The Insurance Company has also taken the defence of fundamental breach of policy by the owner inasmuch as the offending vehicle which was for private use of the owner, was used for the purposes of 'Hire or Reward'.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions, thereby fixing the liability on the owner and absolving the Insurance Company on the ground that owner has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Against this judgment, the appeal was filed before the Bombay High Court.

The High Court observed that Insurance Company does not dispute the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer under a comprehensive policy which did not cover 'Hire or Reward' and the driver of the offending vehicle was having effective and valid driving licence. Also apart from admission by the claimants that he paid Rs. 20/- towards ticket for travelling in the vehicle, there is no other evidence brought on record by the Insurance Company to show that the owner was using the offending vehicle for the business of travelling passengers on 'Hire or Reward' basis. Only on stray admission by the claimants, who obviously gave admission to show his authorized entry in the said vehicle cannot be said that the said vehicle was being used by the owner for hire purpose.

Furthermore, the insurer could not point out from the record that the appellant - owner of the vehicle was knowing that his driver was carrying the passengers in his vehicle. In the absence of any knowledge on the part of owner of the offending vehicle, the finding of the wilful default by the owner cannot be given against him. There is absolutely no evidence on record that the owner was intentionally and knowingly using the offending vehicle for hire purpose.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh alias Jagdev Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 189 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 731, the High Court held that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that comprehensive policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation   to pillion riders in case of motorbikes and passengers in case of cars.

In the light of the aforesaid ratio, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the occupants in the private car, inasmuch as the Insurance Company has failed to prove by way of credible and substantive evidence that the owner/insured was knowingly and wilfully driving the offending vehicle for 'Hire or Reward'.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more