Comprehensive car insurance policies cover liability for occupants in private vehicles regardless of hire-reward disputes.

The deceased, Lakshmanbhai, died in a motor accident on August 10, 2007, while traveling in a Tavera car (a private vehicle) insured by the appellant

The legal heirs filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Insurance Company contested liability, alleging the deceased was a "fare-paying passenger" in a private car, violating the "private car package policy" which prohibited hire or reward

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,34,000/- with 9% interest, holding the insurer liable

The insurer appealed against liability, and the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation

1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate occupants of a private car covered under a "Private Car Package Policy" (Comprehensive Policy)

2. Whether the Insurance Company proved a breach of policy conditions regarding the use of the vehicle for "hire and reward"

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement based on established income and revised legal principles

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan (2013), which established that a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers occupants in a private car

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding 25% future prospects and conventional heads

Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) for a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses given five dependents

The Court found that the appellant failed to prove the deceased was a fare-paying passenger; the FIR and witness testimony (Exh. 84) indicated the deceased was known to the driver and no fare was collected

The Court emphasized that since the policy was a "Private Car Package Policy" and additional premiums were paid for unnamed occupants, the insurer’s liability was contractual and comprehensive

Regarding quantum, the Court noted the Tribunal ignored documentary evidence (Exh. 62) fixing the deceased's salary at Rs. 7,500

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court revised the future prospects to 25% (for ages 40-50) and corrected the personal deduction to 1/4th due to the number of dependents

The Court held that the insurer is liable for occupants under a package policy regardless of the "hire/reward" allegation if unproven

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 8,34,000/- to Rs. 13,75,636/- with 9% interest

The insurer was directed to deposit the additional Rs. 5,41,636/- within six weeks