Insurance Policy 'Limitation as to Use' Clause Overrides Geographical Restrictions When Special Transit Permit Exists

The Respondent-Owner’s vehicle, insured by the Appellant, met with an accident in Nepal during a religious tour, resulting in three deaths.

The vehicle was registered in India, and the owner had obtained a special permit under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) specifically authorizing travel to Nepal.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the Tribunal’s award which had initially exonerated the insurer, instead fastening liability on the Appellant.

The Appellant-Insurer challenged this, arguing that the accident occurred outside the "Geographical Area" (India) specified in the policy and that no additional premium was paid under General Regulation 4 (GR.4) of the India Motor Tariff (IMT) 2002.

The Court applied the principle that an insurance policy must be read as a whole, harmonizing "Geographical Area" with "Limitation as to Use" clauses.

It relied on Section 2(31) of the MVA defining "permit" and the non-obstante clause in Section 147(5) of the MVA, which mandates insurers to indemnify specified persons regardless of conflicting laws.

The "Contra Proferentem" rule was applied, stipulating that ambiguities in standard-form contracts drafted by insurers must be interpreted in favor of the insured.

The Court also referenced Sections 139 and 149 of the MVA regarding the extra-territorial operation of the Act and Article 7 of the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950) regarding reciprocal privileges for citizens.

The Court reasoned that while the "Geographical Area" was listed as India, the "Limitation as to Use" clause generally covered any use under a "permit" within the meaning of the MVA.

Since the owner possessed a valid special permit specifically authorizing the Durg-Nepal route, the vehicle was being used within the contract’s terms.

The Court held that Section 147(5) of the MVA overrides the IMT regulations; thus, the non-payment of an additional 100-500 rupee premium under GR.4 could not negate statutory liability.

Regarding the driving license, the Court found that Nepal authorities had verified the Indian license at the border (issuing a Bhansar Pragna Patra), and under the 1950 Treaty, such Indian authorizations are recognized for movement within Nepal.

The Court emphasized that the MVA is beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally to protect claimants.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the insurer's liability, ordering the insurer to remit the compensation directly to the claimants' bank accounts within four weeks.

The Court issued suggestions to IRDAI to standardize cross-border coverage clauses and ensure insurers use unambiguous language in policies.