Insurance liability for personal accident cover extends to driver if premium paid, absent restrictive policy terms.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to the personal accident cover of ₹2,00,000/- defined in the policy, despite the deceased not being the registered owner of the vehicle.

The court held

The appellants are entitled to compensation of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as the deceased was covered under the personal accident premium

It also directed

The High Court set aside the impugned award and allowed the appeal. The Respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within three months, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim application's filing until realization

01Facts

The appellants/claimants (legal heirs of the deceased, Dhaneshwer Kurrey) filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a fatal accident involving a Tractor (C.G.-04, LF-8960)

pp. 1-2

The 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, dismissed the claim via an award dated 29.10.2018

¶ 1

The appellants appealed to the High Court, asserting that while the primary claim was rejected, they were entitled to compensation under a "personal accident cover" for the owner-driver for which a premium of ₹100/- had been paid

¶ 2

The Insurance Company contested this, arguing that under General Regulation-36 (GR-36) of the Indian Motor Tariff (IMT), the cover applies only to the registered owner, not a deceased driver who merely "stepped into the shoes" of the owner

¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the claimants are entitled to the personal accident cover of ₹2,00,000/- defined in the policy, despite the deceased not being the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶ 2, 5

ii.2. Whether the Insurance Company can rely on the IMT guidelines (GR-36) to limit liability if such terms were not specifically pleaded or explicitly incorporated into the insurance policy provided to the insured.

¶ 5-6

03Law Applied

Tariff Advisory Committee guidelines (IMT) regulate insurers, they do not bind the insured unless specifically stated in the policy [Manjusha and others v. United India Assurance Company Limited and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1512)]

¶ 5

Necessity of specific pleadings and evidence to prove limited liability or employment status [Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 550]

¶ 5

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the insurance policy in question included a specific premium payment of ₹100/- for personal accident cover for the "owner and driver" to the tune of ₹2,00,000/-

¶ 2, 7

Following the rationale in Manjusha, the Court held that the Insurance Company failed to plead or prove that this liability was restricted solely to the registered owner during the Tribunal proceedings

¶ 5-6

Furthermore, the Respondent failed to produce GR-36 of the IMT before the Tribunal or the High Court to demonstrate that the contractual liability excluded the deceased driver

¶ 6

Consequently, as the premium was paid for the "owner and driver," and the deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the contractual liability for personal accident cover was triggered regardless of registered ownership

¶ 7