Case: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Santosh Satish Kumar Garg &amp; Others

risk of the occupants in the jeep other than the driver.We have perused the policy at Exh. 67 and we have noted that in addition to the third party risk, there was extra premium paid of Rs. 150 so as to cover the passengers/occupants in the vehicle and in addition there was a separate premium amount paid for coverage of the driver. From the record it is clear that the insurance policy covered the third party liabilities as well as all the occupants, i.e., 1+5 in the said jeep. Opponent No. 2s witness No. 1, therefore, was right in stating that the insurance policy was covering the risk of occupants. The decision in the case of Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC), relied upon by Mrs. Agarwal clearly states that the object of Chapter XI of the Act has always been recognised as one intended to protect third parties as understood in the context of the Act, unless, of course, there is a special contract in respect of protection to others. In the instant case the insurance policy at Exh. 67 contains a special contract in respect of protection to all the occupants, i.e., driver as well as five occupants and, therefore, it cannot be said that the claim for compensation was not maintainable on account of the proviso below Section 147(1) of the Act.9. Issue No. 5 framed by the Claims Tribunal had cast the burden on the present appellant to prove that the risk of the deceased was not indemnified. No witness was examined by the insurer despite taking a plea that the deceased was not indemnified. It was imperative for the insurer to prove by examining one of its managers/officers as to how the insurance policy at Exh. 67 did not create a special contract so as to cover all the occupants of the jeep and further to show that the risk of the deceased was not indemnified. It was held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 345=109 (2004) DLT 304 (SC)=2004 ACJ 1 (SC), that the Insurance Company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the Insurance Company. Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even when the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.It is, therefore, clear that the Insurance Company was required to prove in the instant case that the insurance policy at Exh. 67 did not indemnify the risk of the deceased or any one other than the driver. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and, therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case the law laid down in the case of Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC), for denying compensation to the claimants of the deceased in that case would not be applicable in the present case. It is also not the case of the Insurance Company that deceased was a gratuitous passenger. It ought to be noted that the owner of the jeep was the company and obviously it would be used by its employees/officers. It was not a passenger vehicle as such like any other private jeep. The company had, therefore, taken enough precautions to ensure that the liability/risk in respect of the occupants was covered by a special contract by paying extra premium over and above required to be paid for covering the third party risk. The vehicle was insured as a company car and it was obviously allowed to carry occupants. It is fairly admitted across the Bar by the insurer that if there is additional premium amount paid so as to cover risks of the occupants of the private vehicle, other than the driver, the risk in respect of such passengers/occupants could be duly indemnified and the owners liability to pay compensation is required to be borne by the Insurance Company. The facts of this case are not similar to the facts in Meena Variyals case (supra), and hence that said decision does not apply.The evidence of witness No. 1 clearly goes to show that deceased was using the vehicle for the companys work (owner) and it was not being used for his personal work. Even otherwise, the risk for 1+5 occupants was covered by paying extra premium as is evident from the insurance policy at Exh. 67. Unless the Insurance Company had examined any of its officers to prove to the contrary, it cannot be held that the Tribunal committed any error in awarding compensation to the claimants.10. The impugned award has not been challenged on any other ground by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Even for calculating the compensation the Tribunal had taken into consideration that the deceased was 48 years of age. He left behind his widow and two minor children who were studying and deceased was the only bread earner. The retirement age was 58 years. The multiplier was fixed at 14 and there is no challenge to the monthly income assessed or to the multiplier fixed. It cannot be denied that the deceased would have achieved further promotions and he would have retired at the age of 58 in a higher position. He was a technically qualified person and the retirement at the age of 58 or 60 by itself would not put an end to his earning capacity and his prospects for acting as a consultant in post-retirement period could not be ruled out till the age of 70 years or so.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by Mrs. Agarwal and we are not impressed by the same. We set out our reasons in the following paras.8. C.V. Alexander was the witness examined by the claimants and he was the Secretary of theat the relevant time. Deceased was holding the post of Works Manager at Mahad which was one of the two factories of the company and the second factory was located at Belapur. He stated that jeep bearing registration No. MGR 7218 was owned by the company and it was for the use of the deceased for the companys work. The jeep was duly insured and he placed on record insurance policy, Exh. 67. He stated that the insurance policy covered the risk of the occupants in the jeep other than the driver.We have perused the policy at Exh. 67 and we have noted that in addition to the third party risk, there was extra premium paid of Rs. 150 so as to cover the passengers/occupants in the vehicle and in addition there was a separate premium amount paid for coverage of the driver. From the record it is clear that the insurance policy covered the third party liabilities as well as all the occupants, i.e., 1+5 in the said jeep. Opponent No. 2s witness No. 1, therefore, was right in stating that the insurance policy was covering the risk of occupants. The decision in the case of Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC), relied upon by Mrs. Agarwal clearly states that the object of Chapter XI of the Act has always been recognised as one intended to protect third parties as understood in the context of the Act, unless, of course, there is a special contract in respect of protection to others. In the instant case the insurance policy at Exh. 67 contains a special contract in respect of protection to all the occupants, i.e., driver as well as five occupants and, therefore, it cannot be said that the claim for compensation was not maintainable on account of the proviso below Section 147(1) of the Act.9. Issue No. 5 framed by the Claims Tribunal had cast the burden on the present appellant to prove that the risk of the deceased was not indemnified. No witness was examined by the insurer despite taking a plea that the deceased was not indemnified. It was imperative for the insurer to prove by examining one of its managers/officers as to how the insurance policy at Exh. 67 did not create a special contract so as to cover all the occupants of the jeep and further to show that the risk of the deceased was not indemnified. It was held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 345=109 (2004) DLT 304 (SC)=2004 ACJ 1 (SC), that the Insurance Company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the Insurance Company. Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even when the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.It is, therefore, clear that the Insurance Company was required to prove in the instant case that the insurance policy at Exh. 67 did not indemnify the risk of the deceased or any one other than the driver. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and, therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case the law laid down in the case of Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC), for denying compensation to the claimants of the deceased in that case would not be applicable in the present case. It is also not the case of the Insurance Company that deceased was a gratuitous passenger. It ought to be noted that the owner of the jeep was the company and obviously it would be used by its employees/officers. It was not a passenger vehicle as such like any other private jeep. The company had, therefore, taken enough precautions to ensure that the liability/risk in respect of the occupants was covered by a special contract by paying extra premium over and above required to be paid for covering the third party risk. The vehicle was insured as a company car and it was obviously allowed to carry occupants. It is fairly admitted across the Bar by the insurer that if there is additional premium amount paid so as to cover risks of the occupants of the private vehicle, other than the driver, the risk in respect of such passengers/occupants could be duly indemnified and the owners liability to pay compensation is required to be borne by the Insurance Company. The facts of this case are not similar to the facts in Meena Variyals case (supra), and hence that said decision does not apply.The evidence of witness No. 1 clearly goes to show that deceased was using the vehicle for the companys work (owner) and it was not being used for his personal work. Even otherwise, the risk for 1+5 occupants was covered by paying extra premium as is evident from the insurance policy at Exh. 67. Unless the Insurance Company had examined any of its officers to prove to the contrary, it cannot be held that the Tribunal committed any error in awarding compensation to the claimants.10. The impugned award has not been challenged on any other ground by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Even for calculating the compensation the Tribunal had taken into consideration that the deceased was 48 years of age. He left behind his widow and two minor children who were studying and deceased was the only bread earner. The retirement age was 58 years. The multiplier was fixed at 14 and there is no challenge to the monthly income assessed or to the multiplier fixed. It cannot be denied that the deceased would have achieved further promotions and he would have retired at the age of 58 in a higher position. He was a technically qualified person and the retirement at the age of 58 or 60 by itself would not put an end to his earning capacity and his prospects for acting as a consultant inperiod could not be ruled out till the age of 70 years or so.