- (1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of a passenger in the car that belonged to the son of the deceased. The accident was said to have taken place when the son who was himself the driver in a bid to steer clear of a cow, saved the cow crossing the road but caused the death of his father by dashing into a tree. The case was dismissed on a finding that there had been inconsistent versions about how the accident had taken place. The tribunal also found that no claim is possible against the insurer for a passenger in a car.
(2.) The driver that dashes against a tree and causes death must be taken as having been negligent, for, it purely depicts a res ipsa loquitur situation. Counsel for the Insurance Company points out to three different versions, namely, that the accident took place when a cow was crossing the road and the driver dashed against the tree, the second version was that what was entered in the DDR that the accident had taken place but it was by chance and the third version was that no one knew how the accident took place but there was a cow crossing the road. All these versions taken separately or conjointly, all lead to only one conclusion that the driver had been negligent. No body takes a chance to die by dashing against a tree. By the very nature of things it must be taken as a poor ability to drive and a negligent conduct that resulted in death.
(3.) A gratuitous passenger in a vehicle will still obtain a full policy coverage if the policy of the insurance is a package policy. There have been circulars issued by Insurance Regulatory Authority to all insurers to enlist the coverage of even a passenger in the vehicle whenever a package policy is taken. The Insurance Tariff Committee issued a circular after the decision of the Supreme Court in Pushapabhai Purushottam Udes, 1977 ACJ 343 dated 25.3.1977 directing all the Insurance Companies to include as package policy the following clauses:- M.V.No.1 of 1978 Bombay 17th March 1978 issued by Tariff Committee. In order to make this intention clear, Insurers are requested to amend clause (a) of Section II of the Standard Private Car Policy by incorporating the following words after the words 'death of or bodily injury to any person' appearing therein: 'Including occupants carried in the motor car provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward' I am accordingly to request Insurers to make the necessary amendment on sheet 38 of the Indian Motor Tariff pending reprinting of the relevant sheet. All existing policies may be deemed to incorporate the above amendment as the above decision is being brought into force with effect from 25th March, 1977. (4) The Circular makes it clear that the intention was never to deny cover for liability to occupants in a private car under a Comprehensive Policy. However, in view of the Supreme Court judgment, lest it be applied even for a Comprehensive Policy, it was decided to amend the Policy to clarify and expressly hold out that such occupants are covered under a Comprehensive Policy. Accordingly, the Policy wording in Sec.II was modified as follows:- "....the Company will indemnify the insured..........against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of :- (i) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured".;