Sikkim HC: What is distinction between comprehensive/package policy and “Act policy for fixing liability of insurance company in motor accident claim petition?

 The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and Another10 distinguished between “Comprehensive/Package Policy” and “Act Policy” and inter alia observed that; “26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act policy” stands on a different footing from a “comprehensive/package policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “comprehensive/package policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “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……………………………………..”

It therefore concludes that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” would cover the liability of the insurer to indemnify the occupant of a vehicle. Contrarily in an “Act Policy” the liability is confined to the limits set out in the Policy. {Para 8}

 THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAC App. No.08 of 2023

Jai Bahadur Subba and Others Vs  SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.

SINGLE BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

DATED : 5th June, 2024

Print Page

Bombay HC: Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for death of son of owner of insured vehicle if insured had taken Comprehensive Insurance policy

 In the fact of the present case, respondent no.2 was driving the car. It was owned by respondent no.1. The deceased was occupant. In this factual backdrop, the insurer cannot avoid liability for aforesaid reasons. The finding of the Tribunal is based on misconception of the law. The Tribunal while recording the findings against the aforesaid issue has relied upon the judgment in case of Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others MANU/SC/1711/2017 : 2017 DGLS (SC) 1419. However, reliance appears to be completely misplaced. It is trite that, the occupant of the private car cannot be treated as third party. However, the position stands apart, when it comes to the package policy. Another reason recorded by the Tribunal is that claimant no.2-Kamal is shown as nominee of the deceased in the policy hence she is owner of the vehicle insured. However, it has no relevance for deciding the issue in hand. The claimant no.2 is widow of the owner. Her nomination by husband is natural on the policy, that itself would not dis-entitle her to raise the claim towards death of her son out of use of the vehicle. The purpose of nomination is to receive compensation amount towards damage of the vehicle or theft of the vehicle, in case owner of the vehicle do not survive. It appears that, the Tribunal has completely misread the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, when it observed that the person like the deceased in present case would step into the shoes of owner of the vehicle. In that view of the matter, findings recorded by the Tribunal against issue no.3 will have to be quashed and set aside. {Para 12}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 749 of 2020

Decided On: 28.08.2023

Bharti and Ors. Vs. Navnath Dagdu Dhat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

Citation: 2023 BHC 18613,2023 SCC ONLINE BOM 1792, MANU/MH/3404/2023.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the occupants in the private car in case of Comprehensive Insurance policy

 In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two-wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.'{Para 27}

In the instant case, it is not disputed that the offending vehicle was insured under Comprehensive Policy at the relevant time. 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'.

{Para 11}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

First Appeal Nos. 1523 of 2008, 648 of 2009

Decided On: 13.12.2019

Sheela Vs. The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.

Citation: 2020(6) MHLJ 264 Bom, MANU/MH/3493/2019.

Print Page