A comprehensive/package motor policy covers occupants of a private car against accident claims.

On 24.09.2015, a Maruti 800 bearing registration no. UK-07-X-0436, travelling from Uttarkashi to Dehradun, fell into a gorge near Kaplani, Suwakholi, District Dehradun.

The vehicle was allegedly driven rashly and negligently, resulting in the deaths of the claimant’s father, mother and minor brother; the minor claimant survived the accident.

Three claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi.

The Tribunal awarded ₹6,54,040 in MACP No. 13 of 2016 for the death of the mother, ₹56,39,680 in MACP No. 11 of 2016 for the death of the father, and ₹4,70,000 in MACP No. 12 of 2016 for the death of the minor brother.

The insurer challenged the awards, contending that there was no FIR, the accident was merely accidental or coincidental, the occupants were travelling for hire or reward, and the deceased were not covered under the policy.

Whether the claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were maintainable despite the insurer’s contention that there was no FIR and only a General Diary entry regarding the accident?

Whether the deceased occupants were travelling as fare-paying passengers or as occupants covered by the vehicle’s package/comprehensive insurance policy, and whether the insurer was liable to pay compensation?

Whether the compensation could be enhanced in the insurer’s appeals by relying on future prospects, conventional heads, loss of domestic care, notional income, or other subsequent judicial precedents, when the claimants had filed neither an independent appeal nor cross-objections?

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires claimants to establish the accident and the negligence of the vehicle’s driver, but motor accident proceedings are decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied on Surender Kumar Arora v. Manoj Bisla, (2012) 4 SCC 552, for the principle that negligence must be proved in a claim under Section 166.

It applied Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Loomba, (2012) 13 SCC 792, and the package-policy principles affirmed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731, holding that a comprehensive/package policy covers occupants of a private car, unlike a bare Act policy.

Under Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639, claimants may defend the compensation awarded in an insurer’s appeal, but cannot obtain enhancement on new grounds without filing an appeal or cross-objections; Order XLI Rule 33 CPC cannot ordinarily be used to grant a larger relief than that claimed.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence because the eyewitness gave a specific account of the vehicle’s rash driving, overtaking and subsequent loss of control, and his testimony was not materially discredited in cross-examination.

The absence of an FIR did not defeat the claims, particularly since the Tribunal had specifically framed and decided the issue of maintainability and had assessed the evidence on the applicable civil standard.

On liability, the Tribunal had found that the driver possessed a valid licence, the vehicle documents were valid, and the vehicle was insured with the appellant.

Applying the package-policy rule in Surendra Nath Loomba, the Court held that occupants of a private car were covered; the insurer’s allegation that they were travelling for hire or reward did not establish a policy breach sufficient to avoid liability.

As to enhancement, the Court distinguished between defending the existing award and seeking a larger award.

Since the claimants had not filed appeals or cross-objections, the Court could not enhance compensation by adding future prospects, conventional heads, loss of domestic care, or a revised notional income under later decisions.

It held that the claims under Section 166 were maintainable, the accident resulted from the driver’s rash and negligent driving, and the occupants were covered under the package policy.

The Court declined to enhance the compensation because the claimants had filed no independent appeals or cross-objections.

The insurer was directed to deposit the balance awarded amount before the concerned Tribunal within 45 days, after adjusting sums already paid.