INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR J^ .^;c7c? ^y '? 1^^1?JN THE MATTER OF /.-*•0:' <t ^ /^Anil Ku., Aged 38 years J^ _.^ ^ t7jf ^ S/0 Sri.R.K. Agrawal, _^^.—-. M.A. fClNo." ' /2009/fD.Bl ysv ^ Resident of Sabzi Mandi Shanichari Bazar, Chantidih, P.S.Sarkanda District: Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus L. Smt Kamla Bal Aged about 30 years W/0 Late DilharanManikpuri ^rfc>fr\AnA4t^< ^2. ^bitesh Das Agedaboutll years <7 S/0 Late Dilharan Manikpuri, Appellant(0wner) At=^l^l-t c - 5^3. ^yaedi Das Aged about8 years S/0 Late Dilharan Manikpuri, Afch<r^<y^ - A Ateinesh Das Aged about 2 years '^CT?3^A>< "•f\^^ s' V S/0 Late Dilharan Manikpuri, Respodenls no.2,3,&4 are Minor -Through Nafajral Guradian Mother Smt Kamla Bai, All Residents of PachariGhat, Krishna Nagar, Juna Bilaspur P.S. City Kotwali Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondents/Applicants ''Sonau Ram, Aged About 24 Year S/0 Pardeshi Ram Kewat Amra^ya Chwok, ChingFajpara, P.S.Sarkanda District: Bilaspur (C.G.) Driver (2) 6. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through: Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Rajeev Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.) ft— V S.SmtHaraBai W/0 Late Ratan Das Manikpuri Residence- Semartal P.S. Koni Tah.&Dis. Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondents/Non-applicants .// APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE AtT t9JB8 AfdsiNG OUT OF THE AWARb DATED 12^/2009 PASSED BY SHRJ A. TOPPO, ADDmONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BILASPUR IN CIAIM CASE N0 18^72008 KA^ALA BA1 AND OTHERS VS SONAU RAM AND OTHERS. •^^sssfs:J3s!CW^as?:s'!'-:^-/ws •sf A^' ':WV:t. ^' ^ '& ^ ? ^>-, ? B v.s^.' g f?l '^s, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BLLASPUR M.A. (C) No. 1311 of^009 Appellant Anil Ku. Versus Respondents . Smt. Kamla Bai SBothers DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. K. Agarwal Ms Savita Panjabi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A. K. Athley, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. O R D ER (OraU (Passed on this 2?th day ofAugust, 2010) Heard. 1. This appeal has been field by the owner challenging the impugned award dated 12th August, 2009, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 187/2008. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that claunants filed a claim case for award of corapensation, subraitting tliat they are legal heirs of Dilharan Manikpuri, who died in an accident on 17.4.2008 while he was going to Dantewada in the vehicle i.e. Jeep, involved in th.e accident. The appellant is owner of the vehicle in.question, bearing registration No. C.G. 10-F/2092. Learned Tribunal held that since for the insurance policy Rs. 25/- per head was paid as additional premium which covers the liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- per head, thus the insurance company is only liable to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants and.pest of the amount of compensation ke. Rs. 7,36,OOO/- shall be paid by the driver and owner (respondents No. 1 and 2 therein) jointly or severally. RT-I-:" f "l-^^-'-wsss-^s^^^^!^ ^S^T —'ss^. A. ^-l Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that leamed claims Tribunal has not considered that the policy in question was a package policy (comprehensive policy) which covers the liability of third party as occupant of a private car. In support of his submission learned counsel appearing for the appellant rely on the order dated 26.8.2010, passed by this Court in M.A.(C) No. 486/2010 ( Hemraj Bardia 85 others Vs. Komal Chand Jain 8s others) 8s other connected matters, wherein this Court held as under :- "4. The circular dated 16th November, 2009, has beenissued to the Chief Executive Officers of all General Insurance Companies, by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, regarding "Liability of Insurance Companies in respect of Occupant of a Private Car and Pillion Rider in a Two-Wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Cdmprehensive Policy)" irt sequence ofthe earlier cirailar M.V.No. 1 of 1978 dated 18th March, 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25th March, 1977 and the Circular MOT/Gen/10 dated 2nd June, 1986 (regarding Pillion Riders in a Tiuo-Wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. These circulars were issued regarding insured's Uability in respect of occupant(s) carrying in a private car and pillion rider carrying on two wheelers, which are covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. The Insurance Regulatory and Develapment Authority regarding liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler under standard motor package policy (comprehensive policy) directed that pending further orders, the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions, wordings, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the "••~<n---MB-(S^/ ^y^. ^. ,\ erstwhile tariffs and observed that all general insurers should adhere to the aforementioned circulars and dny non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the authority. 5. Since the above circulars and the tenns and conditions of the comprehensive policy were not taken into consideration by the leamed claims Tribunal concemed, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the claims Tribunal. 6. Therefore, we allow these appeals in part and set aside the impugned orders dated 5. 1.2010, passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case Nos. 74/2009, 75/2009, 84/2009, 86/2009 and 85/2009, respectively, and remit the matter to the claims Tribunal to decide the claim cases afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, taking into consideration the circulars and tenns & conditions of the comprehensive policies, involved in the respective matters." 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 6. In view of the above, since the above circulars, referred to in the order dated 26.8.2010, passed by this Court in M.A.(C) No. 486/2010, and the terms and conditions of the comprehensive pollcy were not taken into consideration by the learned claims Tribunal concerned, we are of the opinion that the matter 'requires reconsideration by the claims TribunaJ. 7. As a result, we allow this appeal in part and set aside the impugned award dated 12.8.2009, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (Motor Accident Claims ,Trjbunal) in Claim Case No. 187/2008, to the extent of liability of J'?-;^;': ;» 9. the owner and driver (respondents No. 1 and 2 therein) to pay the award ofcompensation ofRs. 7,36,000/-. The matter is remitted back to the claims Tribunal to decide the claiin case afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, taking into consideration the circulars and terms 85 conditions ofthe comprehensive policy, involved in the matter. NQ order as to costs. Sdl- DR. LM-Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge it