This judgment considers appeals against claims in motor accidents. The High Court held that an Act only policy does not cover occupants. Thus, the owner and driver are liable, but directed the insurer to pay the compensation initially.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.187 of 2010
------
M.A. No.186 of 2010
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
C.A.V. ON: 06.04.2022 PRONOUNCED ON: 02.08.2022
“27. 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.’
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.
Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 2nd August, 2022
AFR / Anit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the driver and owner of a vehicle covered by an Act only policy can be sued for compensation when CAV is filed by the insurer.
Whether an Act only insurance policy covers the death of an occupant of the insured vehicle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hemendrasinh Mansinh Jadav Versus Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Dabhi & OthersReferred¶18
Hemendrasinh Mansinh Jadav Versus Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Dabhi & Others; 2019 ACJ 600
Jagtar Singh v. Sanjeev KumarDistinguished¶19
Jagtar Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2018) 15 SCC 189 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. BalakrishnanDistinguished¶19
National Insurance Co. Ltd._ v. _Balakrishnan_, (2013) 1 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
Surendra Nath Sahay
Sunil Kumar Sahay
Anil Kumar Varshney
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
