BB ^" (D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M. A.CONO. °^3T-0F 2006 Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd. Kinetik House Sector-1 D-53 Devendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) An agency of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through the Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhavan, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) NON-APPLICANT N0.2 "? VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. oushila Parganiya, wife of Late «/1^ /^\^ /.^- y Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 27 years, 2.^Rahul Parganiya, S/o Late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 12 years, 3^ Rohit Parganiya, S/o Late Shri ^. Jshwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 10 years, 4. $aurabh Parganiya, S/o Late Shri ' ,- . ,-. ^'- .'.-' ":\\. o- c^..-^' Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 10 years, ' - ^ m -s 5. Tarun Parganiya, Late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 2 years, Respondent No. 2 to 5 Minor through their nature guardian Mother Smt. r 1)ushila Parganiya, All R/o Village- Deorgaon, Post Karnji, District Bastar (C.G.) 6.^ Banshi Thakur, S/o Niranjan Thakur, aged about 27 years, R/o Anuppur, Chita'akot Road, Dadabada Para, Post Dharampura, District Bastar (C.G.) NON-APPLICANT N0.1 MO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION t<3 OF THE CODE OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 n 1 HIGH COURT 9F CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 1612612 APPLICANT Auto In$uranCE Kitmtjc Finance Ltd. , Vs. NON-APPLICmTS Smt. Dushila Parganiya and. othérg. REVISIOK PETITIG OF ORDER DATED 20~07~%011 PA$SED IN M.A.{C} N0. 23212006 DB: Hon’ble Dr. L M. Quddusi & Hon’ble shri G. Minhajuddln, JJ. Present: Shri Rakash Panfley anti Shn' Dashrath Pxajapati, counsel for the app}icant. ORAL ORDER {Pasged an 01“ day cf March, 2012} Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J. Healwi 0n LA. No.0 1, appHcatjon for condonation of Chiay in filing the review petition. 2. Th1$ petition seeking review of m6 outer datcci 26-07—201 1 passed in M.A.{C) N9232f2006 haS bean filed by the appteilaxzt/ Insm‘ance Company. The 3. This review petition is barred by 151 days. applicant/review petitioner has expkained the delay only to the eifect that they sought opinion from the Advocates of Supreme Court as well as The High Courts. Anyway, we ale not on the technical gmunc‘l ‘m rejection of the concionation of delay, therefore, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in ming the review petition. 4. The question of liabiiity of the Leview petitioner was not pressed by the learned counsel in appeai. On perusing the cimular of the Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority dated lé—li—2039 in which it is mentioned that the insurer’s liability in respect of Occupant. of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler is oovemd umiei‘ Stanciard Motor Package Policy which is also callecl as Comprehensive Policy and all the general insuiers weie advised to adheie to the circular and in the said umulzu it was mentiormd that “tha Authority vidé circuiar No. 066/IRDA/ F&U/ Mar—O8 dated March 26, 2008 issuer} Imam" File {k Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further ondws the insurers shail not vary the coverage, ierms anti conditions, wordiugs, warranties, clauses, ami andmsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhjie tariffs. Further, the Autlmrity vide Cimulm‘ No.019/iRDAfNL/F&U;’ Oct~§8 riated November O6, 2008 has mamiated that insurers. are not permitted to abridge the scope of sfandard covers available wider the ereiwhile iariffs b'y’nd the options permitted m the emtwhile tariEs It was $80 mentioneri that any non—compiieulce of the same would be viewed serimlsiy by the authoritv. 5. The instant review petition has been filed on the ground that the deceased. was a pilijml ridier anti mime-x of two Wheeler his risk was not covered. Therefore, the liabiiity cannot be fastened upon the review petitioner and the owner] ineured himeeif being the claimant is not covered anti cannot Chaim compensation as he does not come in the purview of third party for the purpose of deciding the lie under Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The iirst. thing is that 1earned counsel for the appellant did not press the point of liability. Once this ground was not pressetl by the learnerl counsel for the review petitioner, in the appeal, it is not now open for him to press that point by wing the review petition. Further, the insurance policy was a comprehensive policy and the deceased was a pillion ricler. His claim could not have been, denier}. because he was the owner of the vehicie. in View of the circular of Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority, in which it has not been mentioned that if the pillion ritler would be owner carried in two wheeler, he woulci be denied compensation and will be discriminated amongst other pillion riders in case of death Who are not the owner of the two Wheeler. It is not a case of Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act. in thet case, the owner cannot claim compensation from himself and, therefore, the claim petition under Section 163—A wouid not he maintainable in View of the judgment of Hon’bie the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepa! Girishbhai Sam and Others vs. United India insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, reported in (2&04) 5 \% SCC 385. But in thC instant case, i116 claim petition was $ed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance policy was a comprehtnsive paHcy. The (leceasexl was a pilliou rider. Further it '13 also noticed that in aampmhensive insurance pdlicy ayart fmm the cincular of the insurance Regnlamry And 5evelopment Authority, the: review patitionar has rammed tlm compulsory RA. of Rs. 50] - fmm the immrerl Le. deceased. 7. in View of the above, no good ground aypears for Kvr J‘s éismiSse‘i‘ 1 sdl— a t GfMinhaiuddin _ ‘ Sdl- _ ' I j Judge ' ,LM. QuddusiA i Judge A; 1