PAWNI WIDOW Vs. G.GOBI ALIAS GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross appeals have been preferred by the claimants appellants and the insurance company respectively being aggrieved of the judgment-cum-award dated 13.08.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.38/2001, whereby the claim application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was partly allowed and they were awarded damages to the tune of Rs.3,22,000/- while holding the non-claimants, being the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company, jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award.

(2.) The insurance company has filed the appeal on the ground that the insurance policy offered only third party risk coverage. The deceased Mr. Poonamaram was sitting inside the insured jeep and as such, he could not have been termed to be a third party making the insurance company liable to cover the damages.

(3.) In support of this contention, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned counsel representing the insurance company, relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and Anr. AIR 2013 SC 473 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered this very controversy in detail and held that the risk of the person sitting inside or on the vehicle (in case of a two wheeler), would be covered only in case the insurance policy is a comprehensive or a package policy. In case of a third party insurance policy, the liability of the insurance company to cover the risk would arise only for the damages caused to a person not sitting in or on the vehicle.