CASE TITLE – Jai Bahadur Subba and Others versus SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
CASE NUMBER – MAC App. No.08 of 2023
DATED ON – 05. 06.2024
QUORUM – Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts in brief are that, the deceased an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) (Sikkim Armed Police), aged about fifty-two years, earning a monthly salary of ₹91,611/- (Rupees ninety one thousand, six hundred and eleven) only, was travelling from Hee Pechrek, West Sikkim to Pangthang, Gangtok, in the aforementioned vehicle, on 18-10-2021. At around 08.30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident near “Akkar Bridge”, Naya Bazar, Soreng District, resulting in the death of the deceased, the owner/driver and injuries to other occupants. The Claimants/Appellants were denied the compensation amounting to ₹ 99,21,020/- , claimed by them on account of the death of the son of Claimant No.1, the husband of the Claimant No.2 and the father of the Claimants No.3, 4 and 5. The Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim, (hereinafter, the “MACT”) vide its assailed Judgment, dated 17-07 2023, in MACT Case No.14 of 2022, Jai Bahadur Subba and Others vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, inter alia observed that the insurance policy of the vehicle in accident was an “Act Policy” and not a “Comprehensive Package Policy”. That, the Claimants/Appellants would be entitled to the extent of compensation in terms of the insurance coverage i.e., “personal accident cover for unnamed passenger” as stipulated in the policy, MAC App. No.08 of 2023 2 Jai Bahadur Subba and Others vs. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Exhibit 16 and accordingly granted compensation of ₹50,000/ only, augmenting the amount with litigation costs of ₹1, 00,000/- only.
ISSUES
Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed? If so, who is liable to pay the same?
STATUTES
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prescribes the procedures to be followed when applying for appeals against decisions made by Claims Tribunals. It allows anyone unhappy with the award from a Claims Tribunal to file an appeal with the High Court within 90 days.
CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS
Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that, the deceased was travelling in the Alto vehicle, bearing registration No.SK-02-P-2766, of the deceased driver, late Jai Man Limboo. That, the vehicle was duly insured with the Respondent-Insurance Company. He was a third party as the occupant of the vehicle in accident and therefore fully covered by the insurance policy and not a gratuitous passenger as stated by the Respondent. The Respondent was liable to pay the entire compensation claimed which was erroneously denied by the Learned MACT. Referring to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, the “MV Act‟), it was contended that the said section does not distinguish between an “Act Policy” and a “Comprehensive Policy” and the liability to pay compensation is based on the statutory provision. It was urged by Learned Counsel that it has been observed therein that even in respect of an “Act only‟ policy the insurance company would be liable for the statutory amount as payable under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. That, accordingly the compensation ought to be computed in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, towards this reliance was placed on National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and other case laws. The appellants also contended that, in the same Sikkim High Court in Passi Lamu Sherpa and Another vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, they had observed that the facts and circumstances of every motor accident cases is different and an umbrella view cannot be applied to all the matters, hence the Award of the Learned MACT be set aside and compensation be enhanced as prayed.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
The arguments raised by Learned Counsel for the Respondent was that in the first instance the policy was an “Act Policy” and the premium towards personal accident cover of unnamed passenger was paid amounting to ₹25/-(Rupees twenty five) only. The insurance cover thereby was limited to ₹50,000/ (Rupees fifty thousand) only, as reflected in Exhibit 16. As the deceased passenger was a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle, he would be covered under the personal accident cover and no other claims made by the Appellants were maintainable. It was contended that there is a difference between a “Comprehensive Policy” and an “Act Policy” and the insurer will not be liable to pay compensation when a private vehicle meets with an accident and a gratuitous passenger dies as a consequence of the accident. That, the limits of liability is the maximum amount that the insurance company would be liable to pay for each individual claim made during the policy period and the Respondent cannot be made liable to pay any compensation exceeding the coverage under the limits of the liability as reflected in the insurance policy for which an additional premium is required to be deposited, hence the Appeal be dismissed.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
Upon considering the evidence in its entirety and the submissions canvassed, the Learned MACT, declined to grant compensation to the Claimants save as covered by the policy. The same question as settled for determination by the Learned MACT arises for determination by this Court. In this case after going through other judgements, it was seen by the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was a private vehicle. The insurance policy is a “Motor Act Only—Private Car” Policy and not a MAC App. No.08 of 2023 8 Jai Bahadur Subba and Others vs. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Comprehensive Policy. A meticulous perusal of Exhibit 16 revealed that “PA Cover (Personal Accident Cover)—Unnamed Passengers”, a sum insured was of ₹50,000/- only, for which a premium of ₹25/- only, had been deposited. No premium was paid to cover a gratuitous passenger which the deceased ASI indubitably was. In light of the above findings, the Hon’ble High Court found no reason whatsoever to interfere with the findings of the Learned MACT which was accordingly upheld. It was admitted before this Court by the parties that a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- only, along with interest calculated at ₹ 18,123/- only, amounting to ₹ 1,68,123 only, was deposited by the Respondent Insurance Company and has been made over to and received by the Appellant/Claimants. The Appeal was then dismissed and disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
