BRANCH MANAGER Vs. SEBASHTHIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the liability.

(2.) The only contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased had travelled as occupant of the private car insured with the appellant and such category of person is not covered under the policy undertaken which is an ''Act only liability'' policy and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from its liability to pay the compensation. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the Tribunal upon perusal of the insurance policy marked as Ex.R1 has found that the insured has paid premium for basic policy and therefore has rightly fixed liability on the appellant to pay compensation. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Pappu & others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another (Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017 dated 19.01.2018).