Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. Thereafter the question was considered as to the voluntary coverage given by the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- by covering even such passenger risk which was not required to be covered by the mandatory requirements of S. 95by charging the extra premium. To that ex tent the Insurance Company was, therefore held liable because of this special contractual clause by giving a wider coverage. Their Lordships, however, pointed out at page 1747 that even these policy clauses would indicate that what was intended to be covered under clauses 1 and 1 (a) was only the risk required to be covered under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act which restricted the legal liability only to the statutory requirement under S. 95. Therefore, the Act policies satisfying only the requirements of S. 95 would cover passenger risk only in respect of the passengers who were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. The Act policy would not cover the risk of a passenger carried in a vehicle who was not carried for hire, at reward or by reason of or In pursuance of a contract of employment in view Of this finally concluded Position