HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (ONo.1000 of 2009 Appellant/ Insurer ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ljmited, Registered Office ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kuria Complex, Mumbai-400051 through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, GE Road, Raipur (CG). Versys Respondents/ Owner cum Driver 1. Kamlesh S/o Vishambhar, aged about 33 years. Caste Gond, R/o Parsula, PS & Tahsit Gurur, District Durg 2. Smt. Punai Bai W/o Late Garibaram, aged about 50 years. 3. Hukum Lal S/o late Garibaram, aged about 30 years. 4. Mamta D/o tate Garibaram, aged about 20 years, 5. Bhupendra S/o late Garibaram, aged about 18 years caste Nishad. All R/o vills^e Parsula, PS & Tahsil Gurur, Distrtet Durg (CG). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent No. 1 to 5 though served. ORALORDER (Passed on 18th day of March, 2010) Heard on admission. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the award dsrted 23.04.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Baloda, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 92/08. 6. The facts briefly stated are as under: i. On 26.04.2008, Garibaram (sinee deceased) was sitting as a pillion rider on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07/LM/8765 and was going to village Parsula, near Jyoti Hospital, Dalli Rajhara, the motorcycle met with an accident and Garibaramsuccumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. ii. The claimants, by filing a claim petition under Sectfon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act'), claimed Rs. 8,96,000/- as compensation on account of death ofthe deceased in the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material avajlable on record, held the respondent No. 1 responsible for the said accident; vehicle being comprehensively insured, held the insurance company liable to indemnify the insured; assessed Rs. 2,84,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants and awarded thesame amount in favour of the claimants against the owner of the vehicle as well as the appellant/insurance company. Shri Sourabh Sharma, tearned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation against the appellant/insurance company and the award deserves to be set aside against the appellant. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned and the policy filed by the appellant in the instant appeal. The circular dated 16th November, 2009, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority reads as under: ...^^^ ^^.i^ "To CEOs of all General Insurance Companies Re: Liabilities of Insurance Companies in respect of occupant of a prwate Car and Pillion Rider in a Two- Wheeler under standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Insurer's attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1(1) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for private Car and Two Wheelers under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder: "Section 11-Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liabte to pay in respect of- (i) death or bodily injury to any person includjng occupants camed in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles ^ct, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured." It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following drculars earlier issued by the TrafRc Advisory Committee on the subject: (i) Circular M.V. No. 1 of 1978-dated 18th March 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25th March 1977. (ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June, 1986 (regarding Pillion Rklers in a Two Wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. The above circulars make it clear that the Insured's liability in respect of occupant (s) carried in a private Car and Pillion Rider carried on Two Wheeler is covered under theStandard Motor Package Policy. A copy of each ofthe above cjrculars is enclosed for ready reference. The authority vide circular No. OSS/IRDA/F&U/Mar- 08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under Fite & Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders the insures shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditjons ^./ 8. 9. wordings, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstvrfiile tariffe. Further, the Authority. vide circular No. 019/IRDA/NUF&U/Oct-08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurere are not permitted to abridge the scope of standards covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the eratwhite tariffe. All General Insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously bythe Authority. This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority. Sd/- Executive Directof In the instant case, Shri Sharma could not dispute the applicability of the above circular upon the appellant/insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the policy issued is Two Wheeler Package Policy, which in the light of above circular covers the risk of pillion rider also. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellanVinsurance company for payment of compensation to the claimant and the contention put forth by Shri Sharma is sans substance. No other points have been raised by the appellant counsel. In view of foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily at admission stage. No order asto costs. —-—— Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu