(Dipak Misra, C.J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)
Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh _______________________ Appellant
v.
Sanjeev Kumar and Others ______________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2013, decided on December 22, 2017
With
Civil Appeal No. 6943 of 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2013
1. In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant calls in question the legal propriety of the order dated 18th August, 2010, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 1648 of 2008, whereunder the High Court has dislodged the finding of the tribunal and made the owner liable after enhancing the amount of compensation. The insurer has been absolved on the ground that the appellant was a gratuituous passenger in the car.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the controversy is covered by the two-Judge Bench decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan (2013) 1 SCC 731, wherein the Court has held thus:—
“It is extremely important to note here that till 31st December, 2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1st January, 2007, IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the “comprehensive/package policy”. Before the High Court, the Competent Authority of IRDA had stated that on 2nd June, 1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the “comprehensive policy” and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the “comprehensive policy” is presently called a “package policy”. It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the “comprehensive/package policy” irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of the IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1st July, 2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the circulars dated 16th November 2009 and 3rd December, 2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued.
It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated thus:—
“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 Motor Accident 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 the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.”
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 the 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. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.”
3. In view of the aforesaid, we think it appropriate to set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matter for consideration whether the policy in question is a “comprehensive/package policy” or exclusively an “Act policy”. After such consideration it shall pass a reasoned order. Needless to say, if any other contention is available to the insured, he will be at liberty to raise the same before the High Court.
4. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 7546/2013
Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh _________________________ Appellant
v.
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors _____________________________ Respondent(s)
WITH C.A. No. 6943/2015 (IV)
Date : 22-12-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Adv.
Mr. D. Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. R. N. Poddar, AOR
Mr. S.K. Ray, Adv.
Ms. Geetika Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. S.N. Pandy, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Akhilendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
5. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
