TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court remits insurer's liability decision, further adjudication on policy type required.</h1> <h3>National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Balakrishnan & Another</h3> National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Balakrishnan & Another - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of the Managing Director to claim compensation from the insurer.2. Liability of the insurer to indemnify the claimant.3. Classification and coverage of the insurance policy (Act Policy vs. Comprehensive/Package Policy).Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of the Managing Director to Claim Compensation from the Insurer:The primary issue was whether the Managing Director of the respondent company could claim compensation for bodily injuries sustained in an accident. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, and the Managing Director, as an occupant, was entitled to compensation. The High Court concurred, treating the Managing Director as a third party, thus making the insurer liable.2. Liability of the Insurer to Indemnify the Claimant:The insurer contested the claim on several grounds, including the argument that the Managing Director, being the owner, could not be treated as a third party, and the policy did not cover non-fare paying passengers. The tribunal and the High Court found the insurer liable, as the vehicle was registered in the company's name, and the Managing Director was considered a passenger. The Supreme Court analyzed various precedents, including *United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh* and *Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha*, which clarified that statutory policies do not cover gratuitous passengers or owners unless specified.3. Classification and Coverage of the Insurance Policy (Act Policy vs. Comprehensive/Package Policy):A significant aspect was determining whether the insurance policy was an 'Act Policy' or a 'Comprehensive/Package Policy.' The Supreme Court noted that comprehensive/package policies cover occupants in the vehicle, unlike Act policies. The court referred to circulars from the IRDA and the Tariff Advisory Committee, which mandated that comprehensive/package policies cover liabilities towards occupants. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tribunal and the High Court did not adequately discuss the nature of the policy. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the tribunal to scrutinize the policy terms and determine if it was a comprehensive/package policy.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court and tribunal's findings regarding the insurer's liability and remitted the matter to the tribunal for further adjudication on the policy's nature. If the policy is found to be comprehensive/package, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the claimant. Other findings by the tribunal and the High Court were left undisturbed. The appeal was allowed to the specified extent, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 