Bangalore District Court
Diwakar.M.R vs Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd on 17 April, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.963/2011
Dated this the 17th day of April 2015
Petitioner : Diwakar.M.R
S/o Ramachandra
Aged 45 years,
R/at No.2629, main road cross,
Kenchappanna Kote,
Doddaballapura,
Bangalore (R) Dist.,
(By pleader Sri RCS)
V/s
Respondents 1. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Ground floor, NO.31,
TBR towers, I cross,
New Mission road,
Next to B'lore stock Exchange,
J.C road, Bangalore.
Policy issued at
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Ground floor, No.31,
TBR tower, 1st cross,
New Mission road,
Next to Jain college and B'lore
Stock exchange, JC road,
Bangalore-560 002.
(insurer of the Lorry)
(By pleader Sri RSS)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.963/2011
2. Mukesh Enterprises,
B.M road,
Bidadi,
Ramanagar District-562109.
(Owner of the lorry)
(By pleader Sri BVK)
3. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Motor TP Hub,
2nd floor,
Regional office,
Subaram Complex,
MG road,
Bangalore-560 001.
( Insurer of the Car)
(By pleader Sri RA)
4. H.R Suresh
No.115, 3rd main,
5th cross, 2nd phase,
Manjunathanagara,
Bangalore-560 010.
(Owner of the car)
(Exparte)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.963/2011 This claim petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 19.12.2010 at about 10.20 P.M., the petitioner was traveling in Maruthi Car bearing No.KA-02-M-8612 driven by its driver by S.M.Prakash on Doddaballapur-Bangalore road. When they reached near Rajanukunte bus stand, at that time, Canter lorry bearing No.KA- 42-5430 came from opposite side at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. As a result, the petitioner and the driver of the car sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. The petitioner sustained closed right and left tibial plateau comminuted fracture. The petitioner underwent surgeries and discharged with advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest. He spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges and he requires to undergo further treatment and needs amount for it. The petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as a Manager(Land acquisition), SSS projects Ltd., Bangalore and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., Due to the accidental injury, the petitioner is not in position to lead his normal life and was suffered mental shock and agony. Rajanukunte Police have registered a case against the driver of the Car in Cr.No.176/2010 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the insurer and owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-42- 5430 and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the insurer and owner of the Canter lorry bearing No.KA-42-5430. During the proceedings, the insurer and owner of Car bearing No.KA-02-M-8612 are impleaded as the respondent no.3 SCCH-14 4 MVC No.963/2011 and 4 at the instance of the respondent no.1. Hence, the petitioner has claimed Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation with interest from the respondents.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondent no.1 to 3 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed their statement of objections separately. The respondent No.4 remained absent inspite of deemed service of notice. Hence, he is placed exparte.
The respondent No.1 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent No.2 in respect of the Canter lorry bearing No.KA-42-5430, but he has denied the other averments of the petition as false. He has contended that his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the owner and the police have not complied the mandatory provisions of law, that the driver of the insured lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident, that the canter lorry was not having valid and effective permit to ply on the date of accident, that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of canter lorry, but there was negligence on the part of the driver of petitioner's car, that the police have filed chargesheet against the driver of car for causing the accident and injury to the petitioner, that the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with costs.
The respondent no.2 has contended that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of driver of Maruthi car, that there was no SCCH-14 5 MVC No.963/2011 negligence on the part of the driver of the Canter lorry. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost.
The respondent no.3 admitted that he has issued a policy in respect of Car bearing no.KA-02-M-8612 in favour of respondent no.4, but he denied the other averments of the petition as false. He has contended that the policy issued in favour of the respondent no.4 was an Act policy covering the risk of third parties from 24.01.2010 to 23.01.2011, that the policy issued by him does not cover the risk of occupants in the alleged car, that the owner of the car violated the policy conditions, that the owner and the police have not complied with mandatory provisions of law, that compensation claimed by the petitioner is very exorbitant and there is no basis or justification for the same. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. On the basis above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my predecessor-in-office:
1 Whether the petitioner prove that the injuries caused in the accident arising out of the use of the vehicle Canter Lorry bearing No.KA-42-5430 occurred on 19.12.2010 at about 10.20 A.M.,?
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3 What Order?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3. He has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The respondent No.3 has examined his Administrative officer as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 3. The respondent no.1 has examined his officer as RW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.R4 to 6. The SCCH-14 6 MVC No.963/2011 respondent no.2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. At the time of arguments, it is noticed that the issue no.1 needs alteration. Accordingly, issue no.1 is amended as under:
Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 19.12.2010 at 10.20 P.M., near Rajankunte Bus stop, on Doddaballapur-Bangalore road, Bangalore in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of Canter lorry bearing No.KA-42- 5430 and Car bearing No.KA-02-M-8612?
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following rulings:
1. 2013 AIR SCW 5375: (Minu Rout & Anr., Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors.,)
2. 1994 ACJ 1303: ( Mataji Bewa and others V.Hemanta Kumar Jena and another) The counsel for the respondent no.3 has relied upon following rulings:
1.2013 ACJ 199 :(National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Balakrishnan and another)
2. 2013 ACJ 321 :(Oriental Ins., Co.Ltd., Vs. Surendra Nath Loomba and others) I have gone through said rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In Affirmative. For Rs.3,43,000/-
from the respondent no.4.
Issue No.3: As per final order :
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.963/2011
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: PW-1: Diwakar has deposed about the accident and about the injuries caused to him in the accident. His evidence is as per the averments of the petition. PW-3: Dr.Kumar confirms the causing of fracture injuries to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and 3 as to nature of injuries caused to the petitioner. Copy of wound certificate at Ex.P-5 corroborates the oral evidence as to injuries, but police records as Ex.P-1 to 4 and copy of sketch at Ex.C-1 disclose that the police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the car. The sketch indicates that the car went to the other side of the road and caused the accident to the canter. Though, it was a head on collusion, there was no reason for the driver of the car to go on wrong side of the road. The canter was on its correct side. Hence, no negligence can be attributed to its driver. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 that the driver of the canter was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The documentary evidence is contradictory to his evidence. Even there is no evidence to prove that the driver of the canter has contributed to the accident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car and not of the canter. There is no delay in the admission of the injured petitioner to the hospital and in lodging FIR. The history of injuries is clearly mentioned in medical records as RTA. The petitioner sustained fracture injuries in the accident which were grievous in nature. The brake system of the vehicles was in order.
It is opined by the IMV authority that the accident was not due to mechanical defects of the vehicles. The rulings relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, the SCCH-14 8 MVC No.963/2011 charge sheet and sketch go against the case of the petitioner. Evidence of PW-1 remained uncorroborated. On the other hand, the evidence of RW-1 and 2 is consistent with the investigation done by the police. Therefore, I hold that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car wherein the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Consequently, I answer the issue partly in affirmative.
9. ISSUE NO.2: Evidence of PW-1 and 3 and contents of Ex.P-5, 10 to 12 disclose that the petitioner sustained closed comminuted fracture of tibial plateau of both legs. He was treated in Bangalore Baptist Hospital from 19-12-2010 to 10-1-2011. He underwent surgery with implants. He was on follow up treatment and bed rest. His fractures are united with implants in situ. PW-1 says that he requires Rs.75,000/- for future surgery, whereas PW-3 stated that Rs.50,000/- is required for removal of implants. Medical bills are Ex.P- 8 which are supported by case sheet at Ex.P-10, but PW-1 has admitted that bills at Sl.no. 6 to 11 are pertaining to the driver Prakash and says that due to oversight they are produced. Total amount of those bills is Rs.5,870/-. After deduction of said amount, the net amount of medical bills comes to Rs.1,67,592/-. The petitioner was in the hospital for 23 days. His fractures might have taken 3 months to heal up or unite. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner was under treatment and bed rest for a period of 4 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have incurred expenses towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. PW-1 said that he incurred Rs.30,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges, but there is no corroboration to his evidence as to spending that much of amount. Therefore, I award a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.1,68,000/- towards medical SCCH-14 9 MVC No.963/2011 expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses.
10. PW-1: Diwakar has stated that he was aged 45 years, working as Manager (land acquisition) in SSS Projects Ltd., on a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m., Ex.P-6 is copy of driving licence of the petitioner. Ex.P-7 is copy of his voter ID. His date of birth is shown as 26-7-1965 in Ex.P-6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said date of birth. The accident occurred on 19-12-2010. Therefore, it can be held that the petitioner was aged 45 years on the date of accident. Ex.P-4 is copy of charge sheet in which the occupation of the petitioner is shown as manager in XXX Projects. I am of the opinion that the name of the company of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned as XXX Projects instead of SSS Projects. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner was working as manager in SSS Projects Ltd., as on the date of accident, but there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 as to his income. He could have produced payslip, salary certificate or bank statement to prove his salary. In the absence of same, I disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 as to his income, but looking to the designation of the petitioner and year of accident, I am inclined to assess the monthly income of the petitioner @ Rs.10,000/-. His annual salary comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Appropriate multiplier for the age of the petitioner is 14. The petitioner might have lost his salary for 4 months. If he has received salary from his employer during the period of treatment and bed rest, he might have lost his leave. There is nothing on record to believe that the petitioner has not lost his salary or leave. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation equals to his salary for 4 months i.e., for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and bed rest.
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.963/201111. PW-1: Diwakar has stated about his difficulties due to accidental injuries. PW-3 supports the version of PW-1. He further states that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 50% to his lower limbs which comes to disability of 17% to his whole body. The difficulties may persist during the life time of the petitioner, but there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 that due to the accidental injuries, he is demoted or his salary is reduced. There is no oral or documentary evidence to believe that the petitioner is terminated from his service. Under the circumstances, it can be inferred that the petitioner continued his job in SSS Projects Ltd., in the same designation and getting same salary. Therefore, there is no loss of earning due to the disability caused to him. He may face problems due to the permanent disability, but the said disability is not occupational. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards loss of future income. However, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- with interest @9% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
12. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the insurer and owner of the canter lorry bearing No.KA-42-5430. The respondent no.3 and 4 are the insurer and owner of car bearing No.KA-02-M-8612. The respondent no.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections separately, but the respondent no.4 remained exparte. The contesting respondents have denied their liability to compensate the petitioner. Among them, the respondent no.1 and 3 have examined their officers as RW-2 and 1 respectively and got marked documents as Ex.R-1 to 6. Evidence of RW-1 and 2 is as per the defence of the insurers. The copy of sketch at Ex.C-1 and SCCH-14 11 MVC No.963/2011 copy of charge sheet at Ex.P-4 and Ex.R-6 clearly go to show that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the canter, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Therefore, the respondent no.1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner who was the inmate of the car. The evidence of RW-1 and contents of Ex.R-1 to 3 disclose that the driver of the car filed a claim petition before W.C. Commissioner, that he deposed before the said authority and his claim petition was allowed directing the respondent no.4 herein to pay compensation to the said driver, that the car of the respondent no.4 was insured only for III party risks on the date of accident. Deposition of the driver before W.C. proceeding and Judgment therein disclose that the car was being used for hire. The driver has admitted therein that he used to pay the amount received from the passengers to one Balaji. This clearly reveals that the respondent no.4 was using the car for hire at the time of accident. Moreover, his car was not comprehensively insured. The liability of the respondent no.3 was limited to III party risks. The inmates of the car were not covered under the risk. The respondent no.4 has committed breach of conditions of the policy. Even if the risk of the petitioner is covered, the respondent no.3 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.4 and to compensate the petitioner as the vehicle was being used for hire. The rulings relied upon by the respondent no.3 are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The burden to pay compensation and interest is upon the respondent no.4. He has to deposit the amount before the Court. The petition as against the respondent no.1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
13. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.963/2011ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- to the petitioner with interest and he is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 to 3 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 17th day of April 2015.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 13 MVC No.963/2011
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Diwakar M.R PW.2 Uimal Raj PW.3 Dr. C.V Kumar Respondent's RW.1 Shivakumar.G RW.2 Girish Patil ExP1 Copy of FIR with compliant ExP2 Copy of Mahazar Ex.P3 Copy of IMV report Ex.P4 Copy of chargesheet ExP5 Copy of wound certificate SCCH-14 14 MVC No.963/2011 ExP6 Notarized copy of driving licence Ex.P7 Copy of voter ID card Ex.P8 65 medical receipts Ex.P9 Advance receipts Ex.P10 Case sheets Ex.P11 Recent examination Ex.P12 X-rays Respondent's Ex.R1 Copy of Deposition of Prakash Ex.R2 Copy of Judgment in WCA NFC No.15/11 Ex.R3 Copy of policy Ex.R4 Authorisation letter Ex.R5 Copy of policy Ex.R6 Copy of chargesheet XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore. Dt.17.04.2015 P-RCS R1-RSS R2-BVK R3-RA R4-Exparte For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment. ORDER SCCH-14 15 MVC No.963/2011
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- to the petitioner with interest and he is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 to 3 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 16 MVC No.963/2011
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.963/2011 Petitioner : Diwakar.M.R S/o Ramachandra Aged 45 years, R/at No.2629, main road cross, Kenchappanna Kote, Doddaballapura, Bangalore (R) Dist., (By pleader Sri RCS) V/s SCCH-14 17 MVC No.963/2011 Respondents 1. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd., Ground floor, NO.31, TBR towers, I cross, New Mission road, Next to B'lore stock Exchange, J.C road, Bangalore.
Policy issued at Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd., Ground floor, No.31, TBR tower, 1st cross, New Mission road, Next to Jain college and B'lore Stock exchange, JC road, Bangalore-560 002.
(insurer of the Lorry) (By pleader Sri RSS)
2. Mukesh Enterprises, B.M road, Bidadi, Ramanagar District-562109.
(Owner of the lorry) (By pleader Sri BVK)
3. National Insurance Co.Ltd., Motor TP Hub, 2nd floor, Regional office, Subaram Complex, MG road, Bangalore-560 001.
( Insurer of the Car) (By pleader Sri RA)
4. H.R Suresh No.115, 3rd main, 5th cross, 2nd phase, Manjunathanagara, Bangalore-560 010.
(Owner of the car) (Exparte) SCCH-14 18 MVC No.963/2011 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No. [
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- to the petitioner with interest and he is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount SCCH-14 19 MVC No.963/2011 with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 to 3 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs.
_____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE SCCH-14 20 MVC No.963/2011 Decree ClerkSHERISTEDAR RECAST ISSUE NO.1 Dt.09.04.2015 Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 19.12.2010 at 10.20 P.M., near Rajanukunte Bus stop, on Doddaballapura-Bangalore road, Bangalore in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of Canter lorry bearing No.KA-42-5430 and Car bearing No.KA-02-M-8612?
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, SCCH-14 21 MVC No.963/2011 Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
(b) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168-compensation - Enhancement- deceased working as driver of car which is skilled job- Monthly salary of deceased driver taken at Rs.6,000/--Applying Multiplier of 16 to multiplicand of Rs.62,400/-, amount of Rs.9,98,400/- arrived at towards loss of dependency-Deduction of 50% out of total loss of dependency based on contributory negligence, not proper- Addition Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and funeral expense, total compensation of Rs.10,48,400/- held liable to be paid-Insurance Company also liable to pay interest at rate of 9% per annum, from date of application till date of payment.
1994 ACJ 1303 (Mataji Bewa and others) Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena and Anr., Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, section 110-A (Section 166 of 1988 Act)-Claim application-Evidence-Appreciation of- Chargesheet in criminal case showed that deceased was traveling in the truck and sustained fatal injuries when the truck met with accident-Positive evidence, of the claimants that the deceased was a pedestrian and the truck knocked him down and this evidence was not impeached in cross- examination-Tribunal relied upon the chargesheet and held that the deceased was traveling in the truck-Whether the Tribunal's finding justified-Held:no:contents of chargesheet cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim proceeding:
Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it."SCCH-14 22 MVC No.963/2011
2013 ACJ 199 National Ins.,Co.Ltd., Vs. Balakrishnan and Anr., Motor Vehicles Act,1988, section 147(1)-Motor-insurance- Private vehicle-passenger risk-Liability of Insurance Company-Whether in view of circular dated 18-023-1978 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee and circulars dated 16- 11-2009 and 03-12-2009 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, risk of passengers in a private car is covered under comprehensive/package policy and insurance company is liable -Held:yes:but third party risk of an occupant of a private car is not covered under an Act policy:matter remanded to the Tribunal to find out whether policy of the offending vehicle is comprehensive/package policy and fastening liability on insurance company".
2013 ACJ 321 :Oriental Ins.,Co.Ltd., Vs. Surendra Nath Loomba and ors., Motor Vehicles Act.1988, Section 147(1)-Motor Insurance- Private vehicle-passenger risk-Liability of insurance company-Car dashed against a tree, a passenger in car sustained injuries and lost his both eyes certificate of insurance has been filed which only conveys that vehicle is insured on the date of accident-Whether liability of insurance company would depend upon nature of policy- Held:yes:insurance company is liable under comprehensive/package policy but not under Act Policy:
case remitted back to the Tribunal to enable the insurance company to produce policy, parties to file documents and lead evidence and to decide the liability of insurance company."