Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The undisputed facts are that the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing No.KA-.20-H.7609 from Girikematta towards Saibrakatee side, on the road Kota-Saibrakatte. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in the present case, the insurance policy issued as per Exhibit-R2 to R4 is an Act policy, as the pillion rider is not coming within the category of third party. Therefore, on considering this the tribunal has correctly passed the judgment and award. Exhibits-R2 and R4 are the insurance policy, which are one and the same pertaining to the motor cycle No.KA.20.H.7609. This insurance policy is the Act Policy, as the owner had purchased the policy which is Act policy, but there is no proof by the owner that he has paid extra premium/ additional premium so as to cover the risk of the pillion rider of the motor cycle.

4. The pillion rider of the motor cycle and the occupant in the car / jeep are not termed as third party. The Act Policy is issued only to cover the risk of the third party. If any extra premium / additional premium is paid so as to cover the risk of the pillion riders or occupant of the car and jeep then only even though the act policy is issued then the risk is covered, but, in the present case, there is no evidence either by the claimant or by the owner to show that the owner had pad extra premium / additional premium to cover the risk of the pillion rider.

5. This Court vide judgment dated 22.12.2020, passed in MFA No.31781/2010 in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA vs. SHAMARAYA S/O BASANNA KATTIMANI AND OTHERS (Hon'ble HSJ) after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the provisions enumerated in the M.V. Act has held at para - 31 and 32 at follows:

"31. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the Meena Variyal's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the present facts, circumstances involved in these cases. Section 147 of the M.V.Act prescribes, requirements of policy of insurance and limits of liability, while in the proviso appended thereto carves out an exception to the main provision. It prescribes compulsorily coverage of risk to third parties and to those who are stated in the said provision. Therefore, unless the purchase of insurance policy compulsorily at minimal covering the risk of third parties, the owner cannot ply the vehicles on road or on public places and also in private places. Therefore, the provisions of the M.V.Act are benevolent in nature protecting right and interest of victims arising out of accident particularly who are third parties. There is compulsion on the owner for purchasing 'Act Policy/Statutory Policy/liability only policy' but the owner is at option to purchase insurance policy covering more risk apart from third parties. Therefore, for covering risk for occupant in the car/jeep or pillion rider on the motorcycle, then the owner has to pay additional premium. Therefore, proof of additional premium is a pure question of fact. Therefore, where compulsorily purchase of insurance policy covering third parties only the insurance policy is 'Act' Policy/Statutory Policy/liability only policy' but under this 'Act Policy/Statutory Policy/ liability only policy' the risk of occupant of the car/jeep or pillion rider is not covered as they are not be categorized as third parties. Therefore, by this judgment it is held that under the 'Act Policy/Statutory Policy/ liability only policy', the risk of occupant of the jeep/car or pillion rider is not covered hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury occurred to the occupant of the car/jeep or pillion rider. Therefore, under these circumstances the appeal filed by the Insurance Companies in the cases of putting burden on the Insurance Companies to pay compensation, are hereby allowed as putting burden on the Insurance Companies are erroneous, thus putting burden on Insurance Companies is set-aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants and owners of the vehicle if they are calling in question exonerating the Insurance Companies are hereby dismissed.

6. Therefore, the proof of payment of additional premium/ extra premium is a pure question of fact that has to be established by way of leading evidence. But in the present case there is no evidence from the claimant or the owner of the motor cycle regarding the payment of additional premium / extra premium so as to cover the risk of the pillion rider.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per Exhibit-R2 and R4, insurance policy an extra premium of Rs.50, was paid. But on perusal of the insurance policy, Exhibit-R2 and R4, a sum of Rs.50/- is paid towards personal accident for owner / driver, which is extra premium paid only in respect of coverage of personal accident for owner / driver but not to the pillion rider. Therefore, this premium of Rs.50/- is paid as premium in the insurance policy as covering the risk of the owner - driver but not the pillion rider. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimant has stated that, he was a pillion rider on the motor cycle but was not riding the motor cycle. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant.