The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Anand Byrareddy, J.:— These appeals are decided by this common judgment as the question arising for consideration is common to all.
2. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. The appellant in all these appeals, except in M.F.A No. 11983 of 2006, is National Insurance Co. Ltd., a general insurance company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insurer’ for brevity). The insurer has challenged its liability to satisfy the award of compensation in respect of motor accident claims brought by the respective pillion riders of the insured vehicles in each of these cases.
3. In the appeal M.F.A No. 11983 of 2006, the appellant is one of the claimants (arraigned as respondent No. 1 in M.F.A No. 455 of 2007) seeking enhancement of compensation, the same is delinked and dealt with separately. The facts are almost identical in each case. The vehicles involved are motor cycles. The insured while riding the same in a rash manner had caused the vehicle to fall on the ground resulting in injuries to the pillion rider, who in turn had each lodged claims for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction, against the insured and the insurer. The accidents had occurred on different dates during the year 2004. The Tribunal having allowed the claims and fastened the liability jointly and severally against the insurer, the present appeals are filed; apart from one of the claimants seeking enhancement.
4. In each of these cases, the policy of insurance issued by the appellant is termed as a ‘package policy’. The primary ques tion for consideration in these appeals is,
“Whether the insurer is liable to meet the claim for compensation by the pillion rider of the insured vehicle, as a result of the accident, under the terms of the contract of insurance?”
5. It is not in dispute that the contract of insurance is a standard form contract and is identical in each of these cases.
6. On behalf of the insurer it is contended that motor insurance in India cannot be transacted outside the purview of the India Motor Tariff (hereinafter referred to as ‘IMT’, for brevity) unless specifically authorised by the Tariff Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TAC, for brevity) in accordance with the provisions of Part II-B of the Insurance Act, 1938.
As per General Regulation (GR) No. 1 of the IMT, a proposal form as specified under section 5 of the IMT is required to be submitted by the insured to the insurer before the commencement of cover. As per GR No. 2, the policies issued are only standard forms issued under section 6 of the IMT. Insurer is bound to execute the particular contract of insurance in respect of two-wheelers termed as ‘Motorist Two-Wheeler Package Policy’, on the terms and conditions prescribed by the TAC.
The TAC has issued India Motor Tariff, effective and in force from 1.7.2002 and the same supersedes the provisions of the IMT in existence up to 30.6.2002 The counsel for the insurer would seek to place reliance on the said document to sustain their case and in calling upon this court to interpret the terms of contract, with reference to the certificate of insurance in each case.
7. It is contended that there are only two types of policies contemplated under the India Motor Tariff in terms of GR No. 3, namely:
(i) ‘Liability only policy’.—This is said to cover third party liability for bodily injury or death and third party property damage. Personal accident cover for owner-driver is also included.
(ii) “Package policy’.—This covers loss or damage to the vehicle insured (‘own damage’) in addition to (i) above.
8. It is contended that from a plain reading of the definition of ‘package pol icy’, it cannot be said that the risk to a pillion rider is intended to be covered. Fur ther, the proposal form prescribed under section 5 is required to be duly submitted by a proposer after indicating the require ments specified therein. Learned counsel would draw particular attention to query Nos. 24, 25 and 26 which read as follows:
“(24) Do you wish to cover legal liability to:
(A) Driver (No. of persons….)
Yes/No
(B) Other employees (No. of persons…)
Yes/No
(C) Unnamed passenger (No. of persons…)
Yes/No
(25) Do you wish to include personal accident (P.A) cover for named per sons?
Yes/No
If yes, give name and capital sum insured (CSI) opted for. The maximum CSI available per person is Rs. 2,00,000 in the case of private cars and Rs. 1,00,000 in the case of motorised two-wheelers.
Name
CSI opted (Rs.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(26) Do you wish to include P.A, cover for unnamed persons/hirer/pillion passengers (two-wheelers)?
Yes/No
If yes, give the number of persons and capital sum insured (CSI) opted. The maximum CSI available per person is Rs. 2,00,000 in the case of private cars and Rs. 1,00,000 in the case of motorised two-wheelers.
Number of persons
CSI opted (Rs.)”
The premium paid in each of these cases on hand is towards third party liability and personal accident cover to the owner-driver. There is no additional premium paid to cover the risk of a pillion rider.
Next, it is contended that the standard form contract opens with the following preamble:
“whereas the insured by a proposal and declaration dated as stated in the Schedule which shall be the basis of this contract and is deemed to be incorporated herein has applied to the company for insurance hereinafter contained and has paid the premium mentioned in the Schedule as consideration for such insurance in respect of accident loss or damage occurring during the period of insurance. (The term two-wheeler referred to in this tariff will include motor cycle/scooter/auto cycle or any other motorised two-wheeled vehicle mentioned in the Schedule).”
9. It is further contended that the Endorsement No. IMT 18 under section 7 of the Tariff is also relevant for purposes of construing a binding liability in respect of the pillion rider. The same reads as follows:
“IMT 18. Personal accident to unnamed hirer and unnamed pillion passengers.— (Applicable to motorised two-wheelers with or without side-car)
In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that insurer undertakes to pay compensation to any unnamed hirer/driver/any unnamed pillion/sidecar passenger* on the scale provided below for the bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external and visible means whilst mounting into/onto and/or dismounting from or travelling in/on the vehicle insured which independently of any other cause shall within three calendar months of the occurrence of such injury results in:
Details of injury
Scale of compensation
(i) Death
100 per cent
(ii) Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye
100 per cent
(iii) Loss of one limb or sight of one eye
50 per cent
(iv) Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above
100 percent
Provided always that:
(1) compensation shall be payable under only one of the items (i) to (iv) above in respect of any such person arising out of any one occurrence and total liability of the insurer shall not in the aggregate exceed the sum of Rs…**during any one period of insurance in respect of any such person.
(2) no compensation shall be payable in respect of death or injury directly or indirectly wholly or in part arising or resulting from or traceable to (a) intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide, physical defect or infirmity or (b) an accident happening whilst such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
(3) such compensation shall be payable only with approval of the insured named in the policy and, directly to the injured person or his/her legal representative(s) whose receipt shall be a full discharge in respect of the injury of such person.
(4) not more than, persons/passengers are in the vehicle insured at the time of occurrence of such injury.
Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitation of this policy.
*Delete if P.A cover for unnamed pillion/side-car passenger is not taken.
**The capital sum insured (CSI) per passenger is to be inserted.”
10. It is contended that as there is no premium paid to cover the risk to a pillion rider, there is no contractual obligation to cover the risk of a pillion rider as there is no consideration for the contract in that regard. It is contended that there is no legal obligation under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’ for brevity), either to cover the risk to a pillion rider.
11. It is contended that the Apex Court has held that a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage would not be covered by a contract of insurance entered into by and between the insurer and the owner of the vehicle in terms of section 147 of the Act, as has been settled by the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC).
In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the principle enunciated in the case of Asha Rani (supra), to all other categories of vehicles also, stating as follows:
“(21) In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus we must uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company that it owed no liability for the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger.”
12. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V, 2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), while dealing with the question whether the pillion rider on a scooter would be a third party within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and whether the liability of the insurance company would extend to such pillion rider, the Supreme Court has held that the legal obligation arising under section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of the vehicle or the pillion rider. The pillion rider of a two-wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle. It is contended that with this judgment, which affirms the view taken in Tilak Singh's case, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), the legal position stands settled as on date. There is no legal liability on the insurer to cover the risk to a pillion rider in any of these cases. And it is hence submitted that the appeals be allowed absolving the liability of the insurer and consequently to dismiss the appeal against the insurer in the appeal in M.F.A No. 11983 of 2006.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend as follows:
The policy of insurance in each case is a ‘package policy’ under which the personal accident cover for owner-driver is included. The premium payable on a policy is required to be calculated in accordance with the premium computation Tables appearing in the Tariff. There is no dispute that premium is compulsorily recovered to cover the risk to owner-driver in each of these cases. Apart from this, premium is also recovered towards third party risk. It is brought to the notice of the court that the Standard Form Contract expressly provides as follows:
“Section II—Liability to Third Parties.— (1) Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of:
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured,
(ii) damage to property other than prop erty belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. It is contended that from a plain reading of the above, that in a departure from the statutory liability contemplated under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer expressly has undertaken the risk of death or bodily injury to any person including a person carried on the vehicle, provided such person is not carried for hire or reward.
The limit of liability, in so far as any such person suffering death or injury, in the course of employment, being in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act, would have no bearing in the present cases.
15. It is contended that the question for consideration in these appeals is no longer res integra. This court has held in the case of Bajaj Allianz Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. B.M Niranjan, 2008 ACJ 554 (Karnataka), to the effect that the insurer is liable to cover the risk to a pillion rider under a ‘package policy’.
This has been fortified by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Bajaj Allianz Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmamma, M.F.A 7493 of 2007; decided on 25.9.2007
16. It is contended that the several judgments of the Supreme Court, resting with the case of Sudhakaran, 2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), are in relation to the legal liability in terms of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and do not pertain to the contractual liability of the insurer. Insofar as the interpretation of the effect of contractual liability of the insurer is concerned, the same has been specifically addressed by this court in the above judgments and hence there is no merit in the contentions of the insurer.
17. It is also urged that intention of the insurer to cover the risk to a pillion rider is evident from a circular dated 2.6.1986 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee. This has been extracted in a reported judgment of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minaxi, 2000 ACJ 385 (Karnataka). The same reads as follows:
“(Private & Confidential: Issued for the use of insurers carrying on General Insurance Business in India).
TARIFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BOMBAY
Ador House, 1st Floor,
6, K. Dubash Marg,
Bombay-400 023
MOT/GEN/10 2.6.1986
All Regional Offices of:
(1) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta.
(2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay.
(3) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi.
(4) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras.
Government Insurance Funds:
(1) Maharashtra State, Bombay.
(2) Gujarat State, Ahmedabad.
(3) Kerala State, Trivandrum.
(4) Karnataka State, Bangalore.
Re: Compensation to pillion riders
Insurer's attention is invited to section II(1)(a) of standard form for motor cycle, comprehensive policy, sheet 59 of the IMT.
It has now been decided that the standard motor cycle comprehensive policy should cover liability to pillion passengers treating them as occupants in the motor cycle and provide indemnity to such persons who are not carried for hire or reward.
Accordingly, the extra benefit No. 2 granting legal liability to cover side-car passengers will stand deleted and the standard cover under section 2(1)(a) of the policy is worded as under:
Death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward.
Insurers are requested to issue necessary instructions to their Divisional/Branch offices accordingly.
(Y.D Patil)
Secretary
C.C to: The Head Office of New India/National/Oriental/United India. Delhi/Bombay/Calcutta/Madras Regional Committees. General Insurance Corporation of India, Technical Department, Bombay, Government Audit Depts. Bombay/Calcutta/Delhi/Madras.”
18. Counsel for the respondent would contend that it is this intention that is re flected under section II(1)(i) of the Stand ard Form Contract. It is contended that this position has remained unchanged since the issuance of IMT dated 1.8.1989—which has initially incorporated such a liability under section II(1)(i) of the Standard Form Contract, thereto, as follows:
“Section II—Liability to Third Parties.— (1) Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the motor car against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of:
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is hence contended that the appeals be dismissed.
19. By way of reply, it is contended on behalf of insurer, that reference to section II(1)(i) of the Standard Form Contract in isolation, to find the liability of the insurer in respect of a pillion rider, is wholly erroneous. The same would have to be read along with the preamble to the contract which has been extracted hereinabove, the Schedule to the contract, which prescribes the premium payable to cover the risk to third parties, to the owner-rider and the pillion rider and endorsement IMT 18, also extracted above. It is only if the additional premium is paid that there would be consideration for the contract. The clause at section II(1)(i) would not come into operation unless premium is paid in this regard. There is reference to the Motor Vehicles Act insofar as the limit of liability is concerned. The liability insofar as the pillion rider not being spelt out under section 147 of the said Motor Vehicles Act, the reading of section II(1)(i) in isolation would be untenable. It is further contended that the reference to the circular issued in the year 1986 under which the TAC had directed the coverage of risk to a pillion rider was prior to the Tariff of 1989 and even if the same was implemented, the Tariff of 1989 stood superseded by the present Tariff of 2002 and the provisions of the contract would have to be construed as a whole. In the face of endorsement IMT 18 which has not been incorporated in any of the policies of insurance issued in the present appeals, there is no obligation on the part of the insurer to meet the liability. It is contended that the judgments of this Court in the case of B.M Niranjan, 2008 ACJ 554 (Karnataka) and Lakshmamma, M.F.A No. 7493 of 2007; decided on 25.9.2007, have been rendered contrary to the contractual provisions and the settled legal position and hence would not be binding precedents.
20. In the above background and on a perusal of the record, it is to be noticed from the pleadings that the insurer, in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal, has not set up a specific plea as to the liability, insofar as the pillion rider is concerned, being absent. The insurer, however, has generally contended that the liability would be strictly in terms of the policy terms and conditions. It is also to be noted that the insurer did not choose to field any witnesses in support of its case. The certificate of insurance, in each case, has been produced and marked as an exhibit, by consent. The fully worded contract of insurance has not been produced before the Tribunal in any of these cases. It is only on the basis of the policy of insurance that the insurer had contested its liability. It is thus apparent that the insurer is canvassing arguments as to the absence of its liability at length, in these appeals and an extensive reference is made to the IMT to sustain its case. This circumstance alone places the respondents at a disadvantage. Though the presumption would be that insured would have been provided with a fully worded contract of insurance along with the policy, there is no indication that the claimants or the Tribunal did have the benefit of the fully worded contract in the course of the proceedings. In any event, the judgment and award does not disclose that liability in respect of pillion rider was addressed at length. The legal objections are only now raised by the appellant insurer. However, in view of section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the terms of contract are made available in the standard form contract in the IMT, the same is perused at length in addressing the arguments of the insurer.
21. Though there was much vehemence in the contention that unless additional premium is collected in respect of the risk to a pillion rider under IMT 18 and that unless the same is reflected in the policy, the risk would not be covered. There is no attempt to demonstrate the amount of premium payable to cover the risk of such pillion rider under the computation Table, either before the Tribunal or before this court. There is reference in the policy of insurance to ‘IMT 22’ in addition to ‘IMT 7’, in two of the cases, since those two vehicles were under hypothecation agreement. From a reading of IMTT and ‘IMT 22’, it is seen that the same would have no relevance to decide these matters.
22. From a reading of section II(1)(i) of the Standard Form Contract which has been extracted hereinabove, it is to be seen that it is in two parts. The first part refers to coverage of risk to any person including a person carried on the vehicle. This is without the further qualification that it would be subject to payment of additional premium. The second part relates to the limit of liability in respect of any such person suffering death or bodily injury, in the course of employment and such liability being restricted to that contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, a plain reading of the first part of section II(1)(i) would clearly indicate the intention of the insurer to cover the risk to a pillion rider.
23. In so far as the personal accident cover under the General Regulations, GR No. 36 provides for the personal accident cover under the motor policy. In all these cases, the risk to the owner-driver is included.
GR No. 36 is extracted below for ready reference:
“GR No. 36. Personal Accident (PA) Cover under Motor Policy—
(not applicable to vehicles covered under sections E, F and G of Tariff for commercial vehicles)
(A) Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver—
Compulsory personal accident covers shall be applicable under both liability only and package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an effective driving licence is termed as owner-driver for the purposes of this section.
Cover is provided to the owner-driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or travelling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver.
NB: This provision deals with personal accident cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the com pulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving licence. Hence compul sory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body cor porate or where the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving licence. In all such cases, where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted, the additional premium for the compulsory PA cover the owner-driver should not be charged and the compulsory PA cover provision in the policy should also be deleted. Where the owner-driver owns more than one vehicle, compulsory PA cover can be granted for only one vehicle as opted by him/her.
(Emphasis supplied)
The scope of the cover, capital sum insured (CSI) and the annual premium payable under this section, etc.
(B) Optional Personal Accident Cover for Persons other than Owner-Driver—
The cover under this section is limited to maximum capital sum insured (CSI) of Rs. 2,00,000 per person.
Cover is available only in respect of the following persons:
(1) Private cars including three-wheelers rated as private cars and motorised two-wheelers with or without side-car (not for hire or reward): For insured or any named person other than the paid driver and cleaner.
Endorsement IMT 15 is to be used.
(2) Private cars, three-wheelers rated as private cars and motorised two-wheelers (not used for hire or reward) with or without side-car: For unnamed passen gers limited to the registered carrying capacity of the vehicle other than the insured, his paid driver and cleaner.
Endorsement IMT 16 is to be used.
(3) In respect of all classes of vehicles: For paid drivers, cleaners and conductors.
Endorsement IMT 17 is to be used.
(4) Motorised two-wheelers with or without side-car (used for hire or re ward): For unnamed hirer/driver.
Endorsement IMT 18 is to be used.
(Emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxxxx”
Personal accident cover to the owner-driver is compulsorily covered both under the ‘package policy’ and ‘liability only policy’—it is only if the vehicle is owned by a company, firm or other entity, that this is not compulsory and no additional premium is collected.
It may be noticed from the above, that IMT 18 is to be used when the motorised two-wheeler, with or without side-car is used for ‘hire or reward’ for unnamed hirer/driver (sic). The only presumption that can be drawn is that the additional premium compulsorily collected towards coverage of the risk to owner-driver would also cover the risk to a person carried on the two-wheeler as a pillion rider as spelt out under section II(1)(i) of the Standard Form Contract.
24. It is also to be seen from section 3 of the IMT providing for, Tariff for motorised two-wheelers, which prescribes the prime rating, limitations as to use of the vehicle, limits of liability, schedule of premium, etc., also provides for extra benefits that may be sought over and above the liabilities that are covered on payment of extra premium. If the argument on behalf of the insurer is to be accepted, the requirement of payment of additional premium to cover the risk to a pillion rider ought to have found place under the said heading (at page 42 of the Tariff). There is no such provision. Nor are the counsel able to identify any other provision under the Tariff which prescribes the additional premium payable to cover the said risk.
25. The next aspect to be taken note of is the circular that was issued in the year 1986 whereby the insurer was required to cover the risk of a pillion rider on the directions of the Tariff Advisory Committee. There was no requirement of payment of any additional premium. The steep increase in the premium that was collected following the tariff issued in the year 1989, is an indication that the pillion rider of a two-wheeler was also to be covered along with the insured. This is apparent from section II(1)(i) of the 1989 Tariff. The same intention is reflected in the present Tariff as well, though differently worded, in section II(1)(i) of the present Tariff.
Therefore, the contention that there is no consideration for a contractual obligation to cover the risk to a pillion rider is not tenable. The express provision under which the insurer has undertaken the liability is firmly established.
26. It is also pertinent to point out that even the liability in this regard, under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was considered in Tilak Singh's case, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), by the Supreme Court and wherein it was held that though the law laid down as regards the insurer's liability to passengers in a goods vehicle in Asha Rani's case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), was not in respect of two-wheelers—the same principle would apply to gratuitous passengers in other vehicles also, was a view that was sought to be questioned in the course of arguments in Sudhakaran's case, 2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), obviously for the reason that in Asha Rani's case (supra) it was held as follows:
“(23) The applicability of decision of this court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 1 (SC), in this case must be considered keeping that aspect in view. Section 2(35) of the 1988 Act does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas section 2(25) of the 1939 Act did as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of ‘goods vehicle’ in 1939 Act and ‘goods carriage’ in 1988 Act is significant. By reason of the change in the definitions of the terminology, the legislature intended that a goods vehicle could not carry any passenger, as the words ‘in addition to passengers’ occurring in the definition of goods vehicle in the 1939 Act were omitted. Furthermore, it categorically states that ‘goods carriage’ would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use ‘solely for the carriage of goods’. Carrying of passengers in a ‘goods carriage’, thus, is not contemplated under the 1988 Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
And, therefore, while recording the argument put forth at para 13 of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V, 2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), the court observed as follows:
“(13) The submission of Mrs. Bhat, the learned counsel, however, is that this court should not extend the said principle to the vehicles other than the goods carriage. As at present advised, we may not go into the said question in view of some recent decisions of this court, viz., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 ACJ 721 (SC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC).”
The court, however, has significantly observed that it would not be necessary for the present to go into the question. So it is not beyond doubt that even in terms of section 147, the liability of the insurer in respect of an occupant of a car or the pillion rider of a two-wheeler, when the vehicles are designed to carry persons who may be involved in accidents, being liable to be covered, when there is no specific exclusion of such persons. It is, however, to be noticed that under the ‘liability only policy’ in relation to private cars, the contract of insurance does not include the occupants of a car, unlike the contract for a ‘package policy’ in respect of a private car.
It is also significant that in the very judgment, the court has observed that a contract of insurance, which is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract. In all these cases, it cannot be said that the contract was of a statutory nature.
For the above reasons the insurer is held liable to cover the risk to the pillion rider in each of these cases, the appeals do not warrant merit and are dismissed. Amounts in deposit are to be remitted to the Claims Tribunal for the benefit of the claimants-respondents.
27. Appeals dismissed.