After Mother Dies As Pillion Rider, Chhattisgarh HC Sends Coverage Issue Back As Insurer Failed To Produce Full Policy

Meena Bai Nishad died from injuries sustained when she fell from a motorcycle driven by respondent No. 1; the Claims Tribunal found the driver negligent and assessed compensation at ₹10,45,000, but held that the insurer was not liable because the policy did not cover a pillion rider.

The claimants appealed, challenging the insurer’s exoneration and seeking enhancement.

The policy schedule was on record, but the insurer did not produce the complete policy or lead evidence establishing its terms and coverage.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an appeal from a Claims Tribunal award lies under Section 173.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, (1988) 1 SCC 626, the Supreme Court held that a comprehensive policy or payment of a higher premium does not, by itself, establish expanded third-party or passenger coverage; the policy terms, relevant endorsements, and premium for the particular risk must be examined.

Where the insurer disputes coverage, the complete policy and its terms are material to determining the scope of liability; the Court found that the insurer, which had not produced those documents despite opportunity, had failed to establish the asserted Act-only nature of the policy.

The policy schedule showed premiums under both own-damage and liability heads and listed optional personal-accident cover for passengers and pillion riders, but did not conclusively establish the policy’s nature or the scope of coverage.

Applying Jugal Kishore, the Court held that neither the premium entries nor the schedule alone justified a finding that the pillion rider was covered; equally, the incomplete record did not support the Tribunal’s conclusion that the policy was Act-only.

Since the insurer had failed to produce the complete policy and relevant terms, the insurer’s exoneration could not stand without further enquiry.

The Tribunal must allow the parties to produce relevant documents and evidence and decide the insurer’s liability in accordance with law, preferably within two months.

The parties were directed to appear on 23 December 2026 without fresh notices; the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.