HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT &ILASPUR M.A.tC.t No. 1498/2008 APPELLANT/ NON-APPLICANT N0. 1 RESPONDENTS Jharokha Nand Chandra S/o Ram Narayan Chandra, aged about 50 years, R/o village Odekera, Police Station and Tahsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus Bhuvneshwar Bai Satnami Wd/o. late Ganga Prasad Satnami, aged about 30 years, R/o village Kekrabhata, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG) Claimant United India Insurance Company, T.P.C. Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (CG) Non-applicant No. 2 SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESBNT:- Shri Chhabi Patel, Adv. for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Adv. for respondent no. 2. None for respondent no. 1 though served. ORAL ORDER (13-4-2010) 1. This is owner's appeal against the award dated 31st July, 2008 passed in Claim Case No. 90/2007 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Chanipa. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. On 6-11-2007 Ganga Prasad (since deceased) was sitting on appellant's motorcycle as pillion rider bearing registration No. CG-ll-BB-1714 and was going towards Jaijaipur. Near Jaijaipur road turn, the said motorcycle met with an accident as a result of which, Ganga Prasad died on the spot. Claim was preferred by the respondent no. 1 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly 'the Act') against the appellant as well as insurer / respondent No. 2 of the motorcycle claiming Rs. 13,21,500/- as compensation for the death of the deceased in the said accident. 8. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held the appellant responsible for the said accident; awarded Rs. 2,95,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of the deceased in the said accident. Liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant i.e. owner of the motorcycle exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the risk of pillion rider is not covered under the policy. Hence this appeal. , Shri Patel, learned counsel for the appellant referring to the circular dated 16th November, 2009, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, would contend that since the policy is package policy which covers the risk of pillion rider, therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 /Insurance Company would not dispute the above fact and submits that in view of above circular, risk of pillion rider is covered. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal as also the impugned award and the circular dated 16th November, 2009. The circular dated 16th November, 2009 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority reads as under :- "To CEOs of all General Insurance Companies Re: Liabilities 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 Comprehensive Policy). Insurer's attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) l(i) of Standard Motor Package Policy ^^M •^^ -y^ '^^®^; .^ -^' (also called Comprehensive Policy) for privateCar and Two Wheelers under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder: "Section II-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 liable to pay in respect. of- (i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried 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 Act, 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 circulars earlier issued by the Traffic 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 Riders 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 the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy of each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference. The authority vide circular No. 066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File 85 Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders the insures shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions wordings, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers fhatwere under the erstwhile tariffs. Further, the Authority, vide circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/F85U/Oct-08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standards covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. -;T3?IT'S '•^^^ ^ ,,/. ^"^f- All General Insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non- compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority. Sd/- Executive Director" 4 % 9. 10. 11, As per the above circular, the risk of pillion rider is covered under the policy of insurance issued in the instant case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The respondent No. 2/ United India Insurance Company Limited is also held responsible for payment of compensation to the claimant jointly and severely with appellant. The respondent No. 2/United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time from today for deposit of compensation. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge