Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ashish Kumat Patel vs Smt. Urmila Singh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
MISC. APPEAL No. 4366 of 2023
SHRI ASHISH KAMAT PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. URMILA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
MR. ALOK TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.
MR. T.S. LAMBA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.6.
RESERVED ON :- 26.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON:- 08.2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally at motion stage.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants i.e owner and
driver against under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
against the impugned award dated 12.05.2023 passed in MACC
No.971/2021 by 6th MACT, Rewa, District Rewa seeking setting
aside of impugned award/reduction in compensation
amount/exoneration from liability to pay the compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident
occurred on 4.7.2021. After referring to insurance policy Ex.D/1, it is
urged that therein policy period for own damage is from 3.05.2019 to
02.05.2020 whereas policy period of liability is from 3.05.2019 to
02.05.2024. Further, after referring to IRDA Circular, it is urged that
pillion rider is to be treated as third party. Therefore, present policy
being a package policy, in view of date of accident and period of
liability, instant accident would be covered under the insurance policy
Ex.D/1 and therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for
the appellants has relied upon M.A. No.3121/2021 (Rammani Sahu
Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sahu and others) decided on 28.02.2023. On
above grounds, it is urged that the impugned award be suitably
modified and insurance company be held for liable to pay
compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6/insurance Company,
after referring to paras 12 to 16 of the impugned award, submits that
Ex.D/1's policy is an Act policy and not a comprehensive
policy/package policy. Learned counsel for the respondent after
referring to circular issued by IRDA dated 28.08.2018, submits that in
para 5 of the said circular, bundle policy has been defined. In the
instant case, policy period for own damage is of one year i.e. from
3.05.2019 to 02.05.2020. There was no comprehensive/package policy
on the date of accident. Circular, which has been relied upon by the
appellant relates to package policy and not Act policy. Therefore,
Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability
to pay compensation. With respect to above submissions, learned
counsel for the respondent has relied upon M.A.No.3841/2022
(United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shailendra Thakur and others)
decided on 15.11.2022 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Balakrishnan and Anr., 2013 ACJ 199. On above grounds, it is
urged that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.
5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
6. In view of submissions of rival parties, sole issue involved in
the case is whether pillion rider was covered under the insurance
policy Ex.D/1 ?
7. For deciding above issue involved in the case, it would be
appropriate to reproduce relevant part of insurance policy Ex.D/1,
which is as under:-
MOTOR INSURANCE CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY SCHEDULE
MOTORISED TWO WHEELERS (5 YEARS) BUNDLED
POLICY -ZONE B
Policy Period From 11:41 on 03/05/2019
to midnight of 02/05/2020
(Own Damage)
Policy Period From 11:41 on 03/05/2019
(Liability)
to midnight of 02/05/2024
Compulsory PA From 11:41 on 03/05/2019 to
midnight of 02/05/2020"
8. Thus, from insurance policy Ex.D/1's, it is evident that
Ex.D/1 policy is a motorised two wheelers (5 years) bundled policy
and therein, policy period for own damage is from 03.05.2019 to
02.05.2020 and policy period for liability is from 03.05.2019 to
02.05.2024 and also compulsory PA is from 03.05.2019 to 02.05.2020.
Further, from Ex.D/1's, insurance policy, it is evident that schedule of
premium is as under:-
SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM
A. OWN DAMAGE B. LIABILITY
BASIC OD COVER 875.19 BASIC TP COVER 3285.00
MOTOR OD BASIC - 349.19 BASIC TP TOTAL 3285.00
NEW
LESS.UNDERWRITER DISCOUNT 263.00 ADD PA FOR OWNER 360.00
DRIVER-GR36A
BASIC OD TOTAL 612.19 TP TOTAL 3645.00
LESS:HEAD OFFICE DISCOUNT 263.00 TOTAL PREMIUM 3994:00
OD TOTAL 349.00 STAMP DUTY 0.50
MOTOR TOTAL OD 349.00 ADD CGST 359.00
ADD SGST 359.00
TOTAL AMOUNT 4,712.00
Deductibles under Section -I: Compulsory Deductible Rs.100
9. Further, with respect to issue involved in the case, Clause-5
of Ref:IRDA/NL/CIR/MOT/08/2018 dated 28th August, 2018, issued
by Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority of India is also
relevant, which reads as under:-
"5. In respect of Motor Own Damage Insurance cover, in terms
of Section 14(2) (i) of IRDA Act, 1999, the following are being set out
by the Authority:
(i) Currently, as far as Motor own Damage Insurance is
concerned, Package Policies (ie. comprehensive covers) are available
wherein two components are covered- Motor Third Party Liability and
Motor Own Damage Cover. After the introduction of long term Motor
Third Party Insurance for new cars and new two -wheelers, an insured
may be given the following two options:-
1. Long Term Package cover offering both Motor Third Party
Insurance and Own Damage Insurance for three years of five years as
the Case may be.
OR
2. A bundle cover with a three year or five year term (as
applicable) for the third party component and a one year term for the
Own Damage."
10. Thus, from above circular issued by IRDA, it is evident
that bundle policy is not a package policy/comprehensive policy. It is
only when both third party as well as own damage insurance is for
three years or five years, then only, it would be a package policy. It is
well settled that pillion rider does not come within the purview of third
party. In the instant case, deceased was a pillion rider and if insurance
policy is a package policy/comprehensive policy, then, pillion rider
would be covered under such policy. As in the instant case, Ex.D/1's
policy is not a comprehensive policy/package policy, instead, it is a
bundle policy, therefore, Ex.D/1's policy, shall not cover pillion rider.
Further, in above insurance policy, no premium has been paid for the
pillion rider. In the instant case, accident occurred on 04.07.2021 and
Ex.D/1's policy is not a package policy/comprehensive policy.
Therein, policy period for own damage as well as compulsory PA is
for the period from 03.05.2019 to 02.05.2020 and policy period for
liability is from 03.05.2019 to 02.05.2024.
11. So far as circular No.IRDA/NL/CIR/MOT/137/08/2018
issued by IRDA is concerned, it is evident from subject matter of the
same that it relates to standard motor package policy (also called
comprehensive policy) and not to act-only policy. It is also evident
that Ex.D/1's Insurance Policy is not a comprehensive/package policy.
Therefore, above IRDA circular does not help the appellants in any
way.
12. Hence, in view of above, in this Court's opinion, Ex.D/1's
policy, not being a package policy or comprehensive policy, deceased
pillion rider would not be covered under above policy. Further, no
separate premium has been paid for pillion rider. Perusal of judgment
delivered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rammani
Sahu Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sahu (M.A.No.3121/2021) decided on
28.2.2023 reveals that therein issue involved was different from that
involved in the present case. Hence, principle of law laid down therein
does not help the appellants in any way.
13. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, in this
Court's opinion, learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated insurance
company from liability to pay the compensation. There is no illegality
or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No ground is
made out for interference in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
14. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
