J.R. Midha JUDGMENT
J.R. Midha, J.
1. The Court time and resources can be usefully deployed, or they can be unnecessarily consumed or even simply wasted. In the latter case, delays result and there is, apart from injustice by reason thereof, popular dissatisfaction.
2. One of the issues that arose in this appeal gave an indication that the 'issue' was perhaps non-existent. Nevertheless, as an issue, it was consuming extensive Court time. It is in this backdrop that this Court decided to go deeper in an attempt to see if such waste of Court time and resources could be prevented.
3. The issue, and one that appears to be routinely raised by the Insurance Companies in motor accident claims, is:
Whether under a comprehensive/package policy, the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car?
4. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy explicitly covers death of or injury to the pillion rider. The relevant clause of the insurance policy is reproduced hereunder:
1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule thereto, the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicles against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect:
(i) death of 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.
5. The tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were regulated by Tariff Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as TAC) under the Insurance Act, 1938 till 31st December, 2006 and thereafter by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as IRDA) under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. TAC issued a circular dated 18th March, 1978 to all the Insurance companies to cover the occupants in a private car under comprehensive policy w.e.f. 25th March, 1977. On 2nd June, 1986, TAC directed all the Insurance companies to cover a pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the comprehensive policy. The aforesaid directions of TAC are binding on all the Insurance companies who incorporated the specific Clause (reproduced above) in all their insurance policies after the aforesaid directions.
6. Despite clear clause in the Insurance Policy (reproduced above) and binding directions of TAC and IRDA, the Insurance Company has denied the liability in respect of a pillion rider in this case. Same plea is raised by Insurance Companies in every case of pillion rider and occupants in a car under comprehensive/package policies and large number of such cases are reported to be pending in different Courts all over the country.
7. This Court sought to examine whether this really is an issue that calls for determination in every case; or, is it something which, keeping in view the TAC's directives and that of the IRDA, need not arise, and, more importantly, ought not to be raised by any Insurance Company? There can be no dispute about the larger principle that a non- existent issue cannot be allowed to consume Court time and resources.
8. To assist the Court in this endeavour, this Court, by order dated September 9, 2009 appointed Mr. Arun Mohan, Senior Advocate as amicus curiae.
The Facts In This Case
9. On 24th February, 2006, the deceased Vinod Luthra (24 years of age) was returning home riding on the pillion of motorcycle bearing No. DL-75AU-2074 being driven by his friend. At Ahuja Park traffic light near Lodhi Road Complex, the motorcycl........