CHANNAMMA W/O LATE GOVIND, ROOPA D/O LATE GOVIND, PUSHPA D/O LATE GOVIND AND TEJASHWINI D/O LATE GOVIND Vs. BABURAO S/O GUNDAPPA PATIL MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case made out is that on 22.10.2007 when the deceased Govind and others had been to Koralli village for performing bhajana and were returning at about 09.00 p.m. in a jeep bearing No. MH.13.A.2720, the same was being driven by the owner Respondent No.1. Due to driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control over the vehicle and it turned turtle. The deceased succumbed to the injuries, that he sustained. On a claim petition being filed by his legal representatives, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/ - along with interest. By placing reliance on insurance policy it held, it does not cover the risk of inmates of the vehicle. Questioning the same, the claimants have presented the appeal questioning the liability and also to seek enhancement. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is improper. He contends that having collected a sum of Rs. 2,525/ - as premium and other taxes etc., same has to be considered as valid. That it covers the risk of passengers of the vehicle. On the other hand the learned counsel for the insurer supports the said finding. He placed reliance of the judgements reported in;

(2.) THEREFORE , he contends that the policy being an ACT policy would not cover the risk of inmates of the vehicle. Considering the material on record, I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in view of catena of decisions on the said issue. It cannot be presumed that only because a certain amount has been collected as a premium it cannot be read that :the insurance policy covers those persons that have not been mentioned in the policy. Necessarily irrespective of the fact what extent amount was collected as premium, what is mentioned in the policy alone would be executable and it is only to that extent insurer will be liable. He cannot be held for acts beyond the policy. Policy being a question of contract, the parties are bound by the same. There is no cross examination by the appellants on this issue. Hence it cannot be accepted for the first time before this Court. It is not the case of the claimants. Under these circumstances the findings recorded by the Tribunal so far as the liability is concerned, is just and proper and undisturbed.