INSURANCE LAW

ASSIGNMENT
SUBMITTED BY- ADITI SRIVASTAVA
ROLL NUMBER- 33
SUBMITTED TO- PROF. SUKRUT DEO
QUESTION 1-
1. Motor vehicle insurance
State the nature and scope of motor vehicle insurance under motor
vehicle act 1939 old act or 1988 act or motor vehicles amendment
act 2019.

ANSWER 1-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
It is necessary to have knowledge of Motor Vehicles Act passed in 1939 and
amended in 1988. In the old days, many of the pedestrians who were knocked
down by motor vehicles and who were killed or injured, did not get any
compensation because the motorists did not have the resources to pay the
compensation and were also not insured. In order to safeguard the interests of
pedestrians, therefore, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, introduced compulsory
insurance. The insurance of motor vehicles against damage is not made
compulsory, but the insurance of third party liability arising out of the use of
motor vehicles in public places is made compulsory. No motor vehicle can ply in
a public place without such insurance. The liabilities which require compulsory
insurance are as follows: (a) any liability incurred by the insured in respect of
death or bodily injury of any person including owner of the goods or his
authorised representative carried in the carriage. (b) liability incurred in respect
of damage to any property of a third party; (c) liability incurred in respect of
death or bodily injury of any passenger of a public service vehicle; (d) liability
arising under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of death or bodily
injury of: (i) paid driver of the vehicle; (ii)conductor, or ticket examiner (Public
service vehicles); (iii) workers, carried in a goods vehicle; (e) liability in respect
of death or bodily injury of passengers who are carried for hire or reward or by
reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment.
The policy of insurance should cover the liability incurred in respect of any one
accident as follows: (a) In respect of death of or bodily injury to any person, the
amount of liability incurred is without limit i.e unlimited (b) In respect of damage
to any property of third party : A limit of Rs.6,000/-.
The liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public
service vehicle in a public place, the amount of liability incurred is unlimited.
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, provides for liability of the owner
of the Motor Vehicle to pay compensation in certain cases, on the principle of
“no fault”. The amount of compensation, so payable, is, Rs.50,000/- for death,
and Rs.25,000/- for permanent disablement of any person resulting from an
accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.
Scope and Objective-
1.To take care of the fast-increasing number of both commercial vehicles and
personal vehicles in the country.
2.The need for encouraging adoption of higher technology in automotive sector.
3.The greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that
islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances.
4.Concern for road safety standards, and pollution control measures, standards
for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials.
5.Simplification of procedure and policy liberalization for private sector
operations in the road transport field.
6.Need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders.
7.Rationalization of certain definitions with additions of certain new definitions
of new types of vehicles.
8.Stricter procedures relating to grant of driving licenses and the period of
validity thereof.
9.Laying down of standards for the components and parts of motor vehicles.
10.Standards for anti-pollution control devices.
11.Provision for issuing fitness certificates of vehicles also by the authorized
testing stations.
12.Enabling provision for updating the system of registration marks.
Motor Vehicle Act 2019-
The Motor vehicle act 2019 was implemented according to the 2018 report of
the World Health Organization, the highest number of road accidents occur in
India worldwide. Even China, the most populous country, is behind us in this
regard.
As per the report of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, 2017; there
are about 5 lakh road accidents occurred in India every year in which around 1.5
lakh people are killed. There are around 1.49 lakh people died in 2018 in the
road accidents with Uttar Pradesh registering the maximum spike in fatalities.
So, in order to prevent the menace of road accidents; the central government
has amended the Motor Vehicle 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill
2019. This new act is being passed by the Lok Sabha on Jul 23, 2019 and by Rajya
Sabha on Jul 31, 2019.
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019 has been implemented throughout the
country since September 1, 2019. Now the penalty has been increased 10 times
on various violations.
1.Compensation for road accident victims:
The Bill increases the minimum compensation for hit and run cases as follows:
(i) in case of death, from Rs 25,000 to two lakh rupees, and (ii) in case of grievous
injury, from Rs 12,500 to Rs 50,000.
2. Recall of vehicles:
The New Bill allows the central government to order for recall of defected motor
vehicles which may harm the environment, or the driver, or other road users.
3. Road Safety Board:
The National Road Safety Board, will be created by the central government to
advise the central and state governments on all aspects of road safety and traffic
management.
4. Offence and Fines:
The new Bill has increases fines for several offence under the Act.
* Fine for Drink and Driving- Now the fine is increased from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000
along with imprisonment of 6 months. On the repetition of this act fine would
be Rs. 15,000.
* Rash driving will cost fine of Rs. 5000 earlier it was Rs.1000.
*Driving without driving licence will be fined Rs 5000 instead of 500 earlier.
*Offence by Juveniles is a new category introduced. Now guardian of the
Juvenile / owner of the vehicle shall be fined Rs. 25,000 with 3-year
imprisonment. For Juvenile to be tried under Juveniles Justice Act. Registration
of Motor Vehicle shall be cancelled.
*If a vehicle manufacturer fails to comply with motor vehicle standards, the
penalty will be a fine of up to Rs 100 crore, or imprisonment of up to one year,
or both.
*If a contractor fails to comply with road design standards, the penalty will be
up to Rs.1 lac.
* Under section 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 driving without Insurance
will be fined Rs 2000.
*Under the section 194 D of the act; riding without Helmets will be fined to Rs
1000 and disqualification for 3 months for licence.
*Under section 194B of the Act; driving without seat belt will cost Rs. 1000.
*Speeding / Racing will be fined Rs 5,000 instead of Rs 500 earlier.
*Under section 194 E of the Act; not providing way for emergency vehicles will
cost Rs 10,000.

QUESTION 2-
State the broad 2 types of motor vehicle insurance-:
I. Third party insurance policies
II. Comprehensive insurance policies along with suitable
examples any 5 and latest case laws- min 10 cases are required
from 2018-2021 and if any landmark cases which are being
decided (old will do).
ANSWER 2-
I. THIRD PARTY INSURANCE POLICIES

Third-party insurance also referred to as liability insurance essentially provides

financial coverage to an insured person against any liability incurred in case of any
loss/damage caused to third-party property or the person.
In India, there are two types of car insurance available i.e. comprehensive insurance
and third party insurance. Third-party car insurance shields the car owner against
any losses that might incur due to any bodily injury, the demise of a third -party or
damage to the property of that person. In India, it is mandatory to have third-party
car insurance. Anyone can easily buy third-party car insurance online right from the
comfort of his/her home or anywhere across the globe. Buying third-party car
insurance online is easy, convenient and also saves time.

As per the rules of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority (IRDA) of India computes the third party damages.

Third party insurance is a type of insurance policy that covers only third party
liabilities of the vehicle owner. It provides financial protection against any damages
or physical injuries to the third parties caused by an accident. Also known as the
act-only insurance’, the beneficiary under this insurance is a third party and not the
policyholder (first party) or the insurance company (second party).

Third party insurance provides damage protection coverage to the third party by
the insured vehicle. It covers damages to the property, damages to the vehicle,
physical injuries and death of the third party. However, third party insurance will
not offer compensation if the accident was caused due to drunken driving.

Key Benefits & Importance of Third-Party Insurance

Third party insurance comes with its own set of advantages. To know why third
party cover is important for a vehicle, take a look at some of the benefits and
advantages of buying a third party insurance policy:

• Offers Legal Cover and Financial Assistance:

Legal liabilities can be financially draining and can lead to bankruptcy if the
vehicle owner is unable to pay for the losses or damages caused to a third
party person. This is where third party insurance comes into the picture as it
provides the policyholder with the required financial assistance and helps
 him/her to pay off the third party liabilities without exhausting all the
savings.

• Covers Third Party Legal Liabilities

As the name suggests, third party insurance covers all third party legal
liabilities of the policyholder if he/ she causes accidental damages or injuries
to a third party person. Not only does it pay for the damages caused to
someone else’s car or property, but also provides compensation to the third
party person in case of injury or death. Although neither the insurance
company nor the insured is the direct beneficiary of third party insurance but
a third party, this is the most crucial benefit that can be ensured for the owner
or the driver of the insured vehicle.

• Fulfils Legal Mandate

As per the Motor Vehicles Act of India, 1988, it is legally mandatory for all
vehicle owners in India to own a third party insurance cover to be able to use
their vehicles on public roads. Thus, if someone buys third party insurance
for his/her vehicle, he/she abides by the laws of the country and avoid
earning a challan or fine for its violation.

• Easy, Seamless and Fast Process to Acquire Third Party Insurance:

Buying third party insurance is extremely easy and a quick process. Anyone
can easily buy this insurance cover for his/her vehicle anytime online,
including at home. Besides, the price for third party insurance is fixed by the
Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) of India and thus,
there is no scope for discrepancies. The policyholder can also renew this
policy online by visiting the insurer website or insurance broker website and
by following the given instructions.

• Cost-Effective Policy

The coverage offered under third party liability insurance appears

exceptionally cost-effective and rewarding in terms of its cost and premium
 rate. Even if it has to be used as either an essential or an add-on part of the
main policy, it benefits the vehicle owner fully. However, at the time of
calculating the compensation amount, the vehicle owner’s annual income is
considered.

• Ensures Peace of Mind

Third party liability insurance helps a vehicle owner to drive in peace and
without any worries. This is possible because he/she doesn’t have to worry
about arranging the finances in case of an accident as the policy ensures
monetary protection from any unforeseen third party liabilities. Thus, third
party insurance provides the policyholder with peace of mind and allows
him/her to enjoy driving the insured vehicle.

EXAMPLE

when met with an accident, you file an accident claim. In this case you are
the first party protected by the insurance company, who is considered as the
second party. Then, the other motorist in the accident will be considered the
third party. In a scenario, where the other is at fault, you deal with the third
party’s insurance company in order to avoid increasing rates to your policy,
since you were not at fault. This procedure might take longer than usual since
the company will be looking for any loopholes to stall payments, looking at
their best interest.

II. Comprehensive insurance policies along with suitable examples any 5

and latest case laws- min 10 cases are required from 2018-2021 and if
any landmark cases which are being decided .
Comprehensive insurance is a type of automobile insurance that covers damage
to your car from causes other than a collision. Comprehensive insurance will
cover your vehicle if destroyed by a tornado, dented by a run-in with a deer,
spray-painted by a vandal, damaged by a break-in, or crushed by a collapsing
garage, among other causes.
 • Comprehensive insurance is designed to pay for repairs to your vehicle
caused by things other than a collision.
• If you finance a vehicle purchase, you may be required to purchase
comprehensive coverage as well as collision coverage.
• Purchasing comprehensive coverage may not make sense financially if
you drive an older vehicle that's already lost a significant amount of value.
• Raising your deductibles for comprehensive insurance could help to lower
your premiums.
Comprehensive insurance, collision insurance, and liability insurance are the
three components of an automobile insurance policy. In most states, the law
requires drivers to carry liability insurance, but collision and comprehensive
insurance are optional if someone owns a vehicle outright. If a person has
financed the vehicle, the auto loan company might require comprehensive
insurance.
Comprehensive Insurance Covers
• Contact with animals, such as hitting a deer
• Natural disasters, including earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes
• Fire
• Riots and vandalism
• Vehicle theft, or theft of certain parts of the vehicle
• Broken windshields
• Fallen objects, including branches, rocks, or hail.
EXAMPLE-
Say someone drives a Honda Accord worth $10,000, with a $1,000
comprehensive deductible. If a tornado destroys the car, the driver will receive
$9,000 from the insurance company. If they don’t have comprehensive coverage
and a tornado destroys the vehicle, the collision and liability portions of the
policy won’t cover the damage. The driver will be responsible for the entire
$10,000 loss. A driver might have to get a loan to purchase a replacement vehicle
or settle for something less expensive if they don’t have $10,000 to spend on an
equivalent replacement.

CASE LAWS-
1. Moti Singh v. Shanwari Devi and Others-
• The writ petition is being decided, on consent, without calling for counter
affidavit.
• Petitioner claims to have been appointed Bandi Rakshak in January 1980
at District Jail, Deoria. It is contended that he continued until November
1985, thereafter, on oral information to the Authorities that his mother
is ill, he proceeded on leave and thereafter never returned on duty.
• It appears, thereafter, he filed an application under the Right to
Information Act,2005 (R.T.I. Act), seeking information regarding his
services rendered with the respondent-Jail Authorities. In the
information furnished by the Appellate Authority under the R.T.I. Act, it
is noted that service record of the applicant is not available as the matter
has been raised after 33 years, the attendance register from October
1980 to February 1981 is the only record available.
• In the backdrop of the information received under the R. T. I. Act,
petitioner seeks following relief:
• "to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to
the respondent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and
grant with all consequential benefit of the service period which was done
by the petitioner."
• Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was incumbent upon
the respondent authorities to have terminated the services of the
petitioner after adopting due process of law. Since, the services of the
petitioner was not terminated following the service rules petitioner is
entitled to arrears of salary and retiral dues.
• The argument, though attractive on face value lacks merit. As per the
case of the petitioner, he abandoned the service in 1985 and never
returned thereafter; petitioner is presently aged about 63 years as is
being informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner; no service
record of the petitioner is available, except the attendance register of five
months, therefore, it cannot be said, in the absence of record, that
petitioner was duly appointed or continued in service after 1985.
• Petitioner has specifically pleaded in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition
that he left the service in 1985 on oral information to the authorities, and
thereafter, never returned to work, meaning thereby petitioner
abandoned the service in 1985 on his own. He is not entitled to any
consequential benefit for the reason that the competent authority had
 not taken any action terminating the services of the petitioner upon
abandonment.
• It is settled law that a Government servant cannot be termed as a slave,
he has a right to abandon the service any time voluntarily by submitting
his resignation and alternatively, not joining the duty and remaining
absent for long. Absence from duty in the beginning may be misconduct
but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntarily
abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service
come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed
by the employer.

2. Sandip ghosh v. Shriram general insurance co. ltd.-

•The complainant insured the vehicle with the OP insurance company.
•Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.12.2013,.
•The complainant has claimed the said amount of 2,43,036/- but the insurance
company informed that they would pay the said amount after getting the final
bill but not before that.
•Authorised service centre asked for amount from complainant for repairing
works of the said vehicle and to that effect the complainant was bound to take
a loan from open market and paid the demand of t.c. Motors.
•The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant by letter on
the ground of non-supply of some documents from the end of complainant.
•But the complainant stated that he submitted all required documents to the
office of insurance company. The insurance company has tried to escape from
their liability, it was a clear gross negligence & deficiency in the service on the
part of insurance company.
• The court held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,43,036/- from
insurance company as the said amount does not exceed the revised sum insured
of vehicle of Rs. 6,25,000/- so the case succeeds.
•The court directed insurance company to pay Rs. 2,43,036 + Rs. 2000 within 30
days from the date of judgement , in default , the interest @10% p.a. shall be
charged upon the aforesaid amount till full realisation.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satish Kumar & Others
• This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur, Civil Division at
Rampur Bushahr, dated 14.1.2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 12,000 has been
awarded in favour of the claimant for the alleged loss suffered by him on
account of the apples damaged which were being carried in the truck
which met with a motor vehicle accident.
• The only question which arises in this case is whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition. So
far as the question regarding goods being carried in the goods vehicle is
concerned, this question is no longer res integra.
The following questions were referred for the opinion of the Full Bench of
this Court:
“(1) What meaning should be assigned to the phrase ‘any property of a
third party’ occurring in Sections 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988?
(2)Whether the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods
vehicle can be termed to be property of a third party?”
“(1) The phrase ‘any property of a third party’ occurring in Sections 147 and
165 of the Motor Vehicles Act will mean property which is outside the
goods
vehicle and not being carried in the goods vehicle.
(2) The second question is answered by holding that the goods of a
consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed to
be
property of a third party.”
• It is thus obvious that the goods being carried in a goods vehicle cannot
be termed as property of a third party and, therefore, no petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would lie and the remedy of
the owner, if any, is only under the Carriers Act, 1865. Therefore, the
 award of the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction and is accordingly set
aside. It is made clear that the owner of the goods shall be at liberty to
take any other remedy which may be available to him under law. The
owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company shall have the right
to contest the same on all grounds. The appeal is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya-

• Vehicle insurance (also known as car insurance) is insurance for cars,
trucks, motorcycles and other road vehicles. Its main use is to provide
financial protection against physical damage or bodily injury resulting
from traffic collisions and against liability that could also arise from
vehicle incidents. Vehicle insurance can also offer financial protection
against vehicle theft and damage to the vehicle suffered by events
other than traffic collisions, such as incrustations, weather or natural
disasters, and damage suffered by colliding with stationary objects.
The specific terms of vehicle insurance vary with the legal regulations
of each region.
• However, issues may arise as to the extent of liability incurred by the
insurer. The present case analysis deals with a similar issue where such
an issue was once again raised in the case of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya.
• Court noted that, although it is not allowed to use a vehicle unless it is
covered at least under an “Act only” policy, it is not mandatory for the
owner of a vehicle to insure it comprehensively. However, in case you
have comprehensive insurance, a higher premium will be paid
depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Said insurance
entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the total amount of loss
or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated
in accordance with the rules and regulations framed in this name. In
addition, it has been observed that the comprehensive insurance of
the vehicle and the payment of a higher premium in this score,
however, does not mean that the limit of liability with respect to third
party risk is unlimited or greater than the legal liability set in the sub-
section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939.

5. National insurance co. ltd. new delhi v. jugal Kishore and ors-
 • In this case Court noted that, although it is not allowed to use a vehicle
unless it is covered at least under an “Act only” policy, it is not
mandatory for the owner of a vehicle to insure it comprehensively.
However, in case you have comprehensive insurance, a higher
premium will be paid depending on the estimated value of the vehicle.
Said insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the total
amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the
vehicle calculated in accordance with the rules and regulations framed
in this name. In addition, it has been observed that the comprehensive
insurance of the vehicle and the payment of a higher premium in this
score, however, does not mean that the limit of liability with respect
to third party risk is unlimited or greater than the legal liability set in
the sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939.
• Turning to the question as to what would be the extent of liability of
the insurer, one has to understand the meaning of the term
comprehensive insurance . The term comprehensive insurance does
not mean assumption of unlimited liability by the insurer. While an Act
Only policy requires that a vehicle cannot be used unless it is covered,
at least, under Act Only policy , it was not, under the Act of 1939,
obligatory, for the owner of a vehicle, to comprehensively insure the
vehicle. In the case of comprehensive policy, a higher premium is paid
by the insurer on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such
comprehensive insurance, therefore, entitles the owner to claim
reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered by
him up to the estimated value of the vehicle. So far as a third party's
claim is concerned, comprehensive insurance does not mean that the
limited liability of the insurer towards the third party risk becomes
unlimited or higher than statutory liability except in a case where
special premium is paid to, or received by, the insurer assuming
unlimited liability for payment of compensation even in respect of a
third party. Explaining as to what a comprehensive policy means and
what is the extent of an insurer's liability, under a comprehensive
policy.

6. Oriental insurance co. ltd.v. omkarsinh harischandrasinh Jadeja and ors-

• This case mentions the policy to be a "comprehensive policy" but we
are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the
 entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a
"mentioned "T.P. policy only A type" i.e. "act only policy", the
conditions which are attached in the said certificate are all
comprehensive/package policy and, therefore, the observed thus:-"
• "In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt
that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability.

7. Dev singh and another v. Sukhdev kaur and others-

• These are two appeals one filed by the driver and the other by the
claimant aggrieved by the award dated 02.05.2011 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur.
• The driver and owner are disputing their liability and seek exoneration
while the legal heirs of Ran Singh seek enhancement in the
compensation awarded to them.
• The facts which are requisite to be stated are that on 24.10.2009 Ran
Singh was proceeding towards Sangur and was on the pillion of a
motor cycle driven by Dev Singh. An accident occurred and Ran Singh
died on the spot. Ran Singh was earning Rs. 3300/- per month and was
45 years old. The Tribunal assessed the income at Rs. 3000/- per month
which was the minimum wages in that year and made a cut of 1/3rd
and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 2000/- and applied the
multiplier of 13 and calculated the compensation at Rs. 3,12,000/-. A
sum of Rs. 8000/- was added towards loss of consortium and funeral
expenses.
• Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the
award and submitted that the Tribunal was justified in awarding and
placing the limited liability on the Insurance Company as risk covered
was limited.
• The issue which arises is whether the Tribunal was justified in directing
the Insurance Company to deposit a part of the compensation.
Admittedly, the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy, which
would cover the risk of third party. The issue was examined in Yaspal
Luthra's case (supra) in extenso and after elaborate analysis the Delhi
High Court referred to the circulars issued by Tariff Advisory
Committee of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
and eventually held as under:-
• It is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler
covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private
car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a
comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether 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. In fact, in view
of the TAC s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not
permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was
done in the present case.”
• In view of the aforesaid the legal position that emerges is that if the
policy is a comprehensive policy for a two wheeler, it would cover a
pillion rider and the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the
entire compensation.
• The appeal filed by the driver owner is, thus, allowed. The entire
compensation would be paid by the Insurance Company.
• The submission on the other hand is that the claimants had pleaded
that the deceased was earning Rs. 3300/- per month from his tent shop
but the Tribunal had assessed the income at Rs. 3000/- and the
calculations should be made taking the income to be Rs. 3300/-. It was
urged that besides this the claimants were also entitled to enhacement
on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
• As against it, the submission of the Insurance Company was that the
claim had been filed under Section 163 A and the claimants were not
entitled to any amount more than what is provided in the second
schedule.
• The claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 3300/-
per month and he was running a tent shop but the Tribunal found that
except the oral statement no evidence had been produced to establish
that Ran Singh was earning Rs. 3300 per month and held that the
income of a unskilled labour which was prevailing in that District
should be taken into consideration which was Rs. 3000/- per month
and rightly so. It has not been shown that the minimum wages were
higher than what was allowed by the Tribunal, therefore, no change is
required to be made. So far as the compensation for the general
damages is concerned the claimants were only entitled to the general
damages as provided in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act.
 No enhancement is required to be given. The appeal filed by the
claimants is dismissed.

8. National insurance co. v. k. ponnuswamy-

• only mentions the policy to be a comprehensive policy but we are
inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the
entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a package
amputation contractually under the Insurance Policy in case of
comprehensive policy.
• The second argument of the appellant/Insurance company is that the
1st respondent cannot make claims against the impugned before it,
the Honble Division bench of this Court had held that the legal heirs
were entitled to get compensation in case of comprehensive policy.

9. United India Insurance Company vs Sathish Kumar-

• The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance
Company has marked the Ex.R.1-Insurance Policy which is an Act Policy
and there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company towards
claim of the pillion riders.
• The Act Policy does not cover the risk of death or bodily injuries to the
gratuitous passengers. The liability of the Insurance Company can be
determined only on the basis of premium collected and in the absence
of additional premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation.
• The Tribunal erred in holding that the 1st respondent is third party and
failed to note that occupant of the vehicle cannot be treated as third
party. Further, the Tribunal failed to take note of the Judgment
reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 637 (SC) and 2012 (2) TN MAC 650 (SC).
Further, in support of his contention.

10.Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. –

• In this case it was held that, an insurance policy covers the liability
incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any
person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised
representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a
third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section
 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require an Insurance Company
to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
• The question that arises is whether a comprehensive policy would
cover the risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle also to comply with
the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy
which—
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and.
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to
the extent specified in sub-section(2) against any liability which may
be incurred.