JAYAKUMAR Vs. RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are filed by the owner of a Mahindra Trekker KBT 1231. The claimants in the two petitions were travelling in the jeep and they sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 27.6.1987. In the petitions filed by them, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant in O.P.(MV) 41 of 1988 and an amount of Rs.18,000/- to the claimant in O.P.(MV) 61 of 1988. In these appeals by the owner of the vehicle, the only contention pressed at the time of arguments is with respect to the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is not liable. The Tribunal found that the claimants who are passengers were travelling for hire, though it was registered as a private vehicle.

(2.) In these appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had taken a comprehensive policy and therefore the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation as found by the Tribunal. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jameskutty Jacob v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (3) KLT 607 and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 (3) SCC 744 .

(3.) The learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand contended that the policy for vehicle stated that the policy does not cover use for hire or reward or for organised racing, pace making etc. According to the learned counsel, when the policy specifically excludes coverage in respect of persons travelling for hire or reward, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation if the compensation is claimed by such persons. He also argued that the additional premium paid as comprehensive premium does not cover insurance for such persons travelling for hire or reward.