SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the claimants involves for decision only a short point relating to the liability under comprehensive policy of insurance issued by the Insurance Company (third respondent).
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that on February 18, 1987 claimant Ashok Maheshwary and his wife Madhu (deceased) were proceeding on Luna bearing No. RNL 3344 owned and driven by the claimant Ashok Maheshwary and was under comprehensive insurance policy issued by third respondent. Around 5.30 p.m. Tractor No. RSB 2213 collided with Luna as a result of which Madhu fell down and wheel of tractor crushed her. The claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. Third respondent filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that as there was no rash and negligence on the part of driver of Luna the third respondent was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal framed issue No. 4 in this regard, decided it against the claimants and exonerated third respondent from the liability. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal in exonerating the third respondent from the liability is not sustainable. The reasons are as under: (i) Section 11(1)(a) of Standard Form for Motorcycle, Comprehensive Policy, Sheet 59 of the IMT, covers liability to pillion passengers treating them as occupants in the Motor cycle and provides indemnity to such persons who are not carried for hire or reward. But learned Tribunal failed to consider this important aspect. (ii) The Tariff Advisory Committee amended the tariff on March 25, 1977 and by this amendment the Insurance Companies were compulsorily required to incorporate a clause in the contract to indemnify the insured for the death of or bodily injury to any person including the occupant. (iii) The Tariff Advisory Committee is the statutory body constituted under the Insurance Act and its decisions have legal force and are binding on the Insurance Companies. (iv) The third respondent neither adduced evidence in support of its pleadings nor placed on record the insurance policy but learned Tribunal failed to draw adverse inference against it. (v) The word 'any person' used in the statutory provisions also covers the pillion rider.
(3.) RATIO indicated in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 ACJ 118 (S.C.) and Oriental Insurance Co. v. Sunita Rathi : AIR1997SC4228 , is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Here cause of action arose to the claimants to claim compensation against the third respondent.;