Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

     T.P. Basic                         -      700-00
     PA to unnamed passengers           -      250-00
     Number 5, Amount 1,00,000/-
     per person
     Compulsory PA to owner cum         -      100-00
     Driver
     Amount 2,00,000/-
     WC to Employee                     -       25-00

5. This clearly shows that in the contract of insurance entered by and between the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-Insurer, liability of the Insurance company to indemnify the award amount is limited to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per unnamed passenger. The deceased in this case unfortunately was one such passenger in the private Jeep bearing registration No. KA-13-M-478 insured with the appellant and owned by respondent No.1 in this appeal. It was open to the owner to pay additional premium to cover the entire risk of death or personal injury to the passengers in which event insurance company would have been mulcted with the liability to pay the entire compensation awarded in the case of THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD V. MAHADEV PANDURANG PATIL reported in ILR 2011 KAR 850 at paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed thus:

"16. If the risk of an occupant of a car, inmate of a vehicle or passenger in a private car, is to be covered additional premium has to be paid. If no additional premium is paid their risk is not covered. The statutory liability under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act has to be read with the terms of the insurance policy issued under Section 146 of the Act. But that does not prevent an insurer from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby the risk to gratuitous passengers could also be covered. A third party policy does not cover liability to gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward, if a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy additional premium is required to be paid. The liability is restricted to the liability arising out of the statutory requirement under-Section 146 only.
17. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court holding that an occupant/inmate/passenger in a private car is not a third party the finding recorded by the tribunal that the insurance policy issued covers the risk of such persons and therefore the insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount is illegal and contrary to the law declared by the apex court. In fact in the policy no additional premium is received by the insurance company to cover the risk of such persons. It is clear from the terminology used in the policy which fact is not in dispute. In one of the cases additional premium is collected to loading the risk of third party only as is clear from the policy that loading was not meant to cover risk of inmates of a private car and therefore merely because an additional premium is collected under the said policy, it cannot be inferred that the risk of inmates of a car are covered. The words are specific that the loading is done in order to cover only third party risk, it is not a case of additional premium being collected to cover the risk of inmates along with third parties. Therefore, in the facts of this case we are satisfied as the insured has not paid additional premium and the insurance company has not collected any additional premium, the risk of the occupants of a private car was not covered. Therefore, liability foisted on the insurance company cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is hereby set aside."