Shri Ashish Kumat Patel vs. Smt. Urmila Singh

Held

The Court held that the insurance policy Ex.D/1 was a bundled policy and not a package or comprehensive policy. The Court noted that for a policy to be considered a package policy covering a pillion rider, both the third-party liability and own damage components must be for an extended period (three or five years). In this case, the policy period for own damage and compulsory PA was from 03.05.2019 to 02.05.2020, which had expired by the date of the accident (04.07.2021). The Court also observed that no separate premium had been paid for the pillion rider. Therefore, the deceased pillion rider was not covered under the policy. The Court distinguished the case from Rammani Sahu Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, finding its principle inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal was found to have rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

This appeal was filed by the owner and driver of a vehicle against an award dated 12.05.2023 passed by the 6th MACT, Rewa. The incident occurred on 04.07.2021. The appellants contended that the insurance policy, Ex.D/1, was a package policy covering the period of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company should be liable for compensation. They argued that a pillion rider is treated as a third party, and the policy's liability period extended beyond the accident date. The respondent insurance company argued that Ex.D/1 was an Act policy, not a comprehensive or package policy, and the policy period for own damage had expired. They asserted that the Tribunal had rightly exonerated them from liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the pillion rider was covered under the insurance policy Ex.D/1, considering the policy period and its nature (Question of law and fact). Appellants' Arguments: The appellants argued that the insurance policy Ex.D/1 was a package policy with a liability period extending to 02.05.2024. They relied on an IRDA Circular stating that a pillion rider should be treated as a third party. Therefore, the accident, occurring on 04.07.2021, should be covered under the policy, making the insurance company liable. They cited MA No.3121/2021 (Rammani Sahu Vs. Ramesh Kumar Shau and others). Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent insurance company argued that Ex.D/1 was an Act policy, not a comprehensive/package policy. They referred to an IRDA Circular defining bundle policies and stated that the own damage policy period was only for one year (03.05.2021 to 02.05.2021), which had expired. They contended that the circular relied upon by the appellants pertained to package policies, not Act policies, and that the Tribunal was correct in exonerating them. They cited M.A.No.3841/2022 (United Insurance Co.Lt. Vs. Shailendra Thakur and others) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and Anr.