Case: Mata Ram Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:-(i) The Appellant herein got his tractor and trolley insured with National Insurance Co, Ltd., Respondent No. 1 herein, and that extra premium was also paid for the insurance of the driver of the vehicle and 3 employees.(ii) The vehicle met with an accident. The claimants-proforma Respondents filed claim application in lieu of death of one Mohammad Khatruddin alias Khaba before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal).(iii) The Claims Tribunal decided the claim petition on its merit in favour of the claimants and fastened the liability on the insurance company, Respondent No. 1, with a direction to the insurance company to indemnify the insured as the insurance company has charged the premium for 3 persons excluding the driver of the tractor from the owner of the tractor at the time of issuance of the insurance policy.(iv) The insurance company, being aggrieved by the order of Claims Tribunal saddling it with the liability, filed FAO No. 106 of 2009 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.(v) The High Court, by impugned judgment disposed of FAO and modified the order passed by the Tribunal holding the insurer liable and giving the recovery rights to the insurance company against the Appellant herein.(vi) Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred this appeal, by way of special leave.

Court's reasoning:
7. We have gone through the material available on record including the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy and the judgment of this court cited before us.8. After carefully perusing the records of the case and having regard to the fact that the insurance policy clearly shows that the insurance company has charged a premium from the insured for 3 persons excluding the driver, we are of the opinion that the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability on the death of a person.9. Therefore, in our considered view, the High Court has failed to take note of the said facts in question and modified the order passed by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the judgment of this Court which was cited before us is applicable to the matter in question.