Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand Tripathi vs Lily Joshi on 14 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 ACJ 785
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Though various grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal at the hearing today, the learned Counsel for the appellant restricts challenge to only one issue, namely, the finding in the impugned award that considering that the deceased Vinod Kumar Joshi was a pillion rider, award has not to be satisfied by the insurance company in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Date of accident is 25.10.1983. Deceased died in the midnight of 6/7.11.1983 due to the accident.
3. Claim petition had to be adjudicated under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Thus, the issue has to be considered in view of Section 95 of the said Act.
4. Needless to state, the Supreme Court held that a pillion rider would not be a third party and, therefore, unless a specific premium was paid in respect of injury or death to a pillion rider on a two-wheeler scooter, insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the award.
5. Said decision has been noted by the learned trial Judge in holding that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award.
6. Unfortunately, a notification issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee applicable w.e.f. 25.3.1977 was not brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge.
7. I am pained to note that the insurance company did not disclose the existence of the said notification. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court noted the same in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daniel .
8. A Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Singh , also noted the same.
9. In Prem Singh's case , it was recorded as under:
(16) We, however, need not go into the question. We find that compensation in respect of the pillion riders was considered by the Tariff Advisory Committee and it was decided that death of or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle would be covered provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. These instructions were made effective w.e.f. 25.3.1977. The Tariff Advisory Committee had directed:
All existing policies should be deemed to incorporate this amendment automatically irrespective of the fact whether it is an "Act policy" or a "comprehensive policy".
(17) We requested Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Counsel for appellant insurance company to verify if the instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee dated 13.3.1978 were followed by the appellant insurance company. Ms. Devyani Sharma, on instructions from appellant insurance company, fairly conceded that the instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee were followed by appellant insurance company. These instructions were noticed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daniel .
(18) In this view of the matter, we hold that pillion rider is covered under the Act policy, Exh. PX and insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured.
10. Needless to state, Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court was informed by the counsel for the insurance company on verification that instructions referred to in para 16 of the decision in Prem Singh's case , were applicable as per the notification issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
11. I note that notification in question incorporates a deemed automatic amendment of policies issued w.e.f. 25.3.1977, irrespective of the fact that whether the policy is an 'Act only policy' or a 'comprehensive policy'.
12. The notification clearly mandates that death or bodily injury to a pillion rider would be at par with a claim of a third party.
13. In view of the decisions of Kerala High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court, appeal stands disposed of modifying the impugned award and directing that liability to satisfy the award would be that of the insurance company.
14. Since the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle, has not to satisfy the award, I direct that the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2001 be paid over to the appellant together with accrued interest, if any, thereon.
15. No costs.
