Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Owner of utility vehicle was involved in an accident – Five claim petitions were filed – The High Court found that the utility vehicle was not entitled to carry passengers by reason of the specific restriction in the policy which is evident from “Limitation as to Use” – The High Court ordered “pay and recover” – Correctness:
Held: It was admitted by the Branch Manager in charge of the Insurance Company that the insurance policy was issued to the owner, in accordance with the rules and looking at the registration certificate, wherein the category of the vehicle is registered as “Utility Van” – The witness further admitted that the seating capacity in the policy is also written as 4+1 and that there is no recital in the policy document regarding the premium for passengers having not been charged – It was also admitted that the utility van is a vehicle in which half portion is used for carrying of goods and half portion in front is used for carrying passengers – Hence, there can be no restriction insofar as the ‘limitation as to use’ as found in the policy which applies only to goods vehicles while the present vehicle as per the certificate of registration is a utility vehicle and the permit issued is of a contract carriage – The package policy was issued by the Insurance Company after looking at the certificate of registration and the permit issued and it has been clearly specified that the vehicle is entitled to carry 4+1 passengers in addition to the goods – The Insurance Company in the above circumstance, cannot wriggle out of its liability to indemnify the owner – As far as the contention regarding 5 persons having filed claim petitionss, indicating more than 4 persons having been carried in the vehicle is concerned, the eyewitness, PW2 who saw the accident clearly stated that just prior to the accident, he saw the vehicle coming with 4 passengers in it – There was no challenge to the said evidence in the cross examination by the Insurance Company – There is absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court directing pay and recovery – The liability is on the Insurance Company and that has to be satisfied fully by the Insurance Company. [Paras 6, 7]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.