The Chhattisgarh High Court affirms that under a comprehensive/package policy, the insurer is liable for compensation to a pillion rider—even if the rider is related to the vehicle owner—thereby following Delhi High Court precedent and clarifying precedential value for motor accident claims.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1093/2022 of KU. ARTI MINJ Vs Bartholomiyush Minj |
| CNR | CGHC010324852022 |
| Date of Registration | 12-10-2022 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the reasoning in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Insurance (Motor Accident Compensation) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a comprehensive/package policy obligates the insurer to compensate for death/injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where a two-wheeler is covered by a comprehensive/package insurance policy, the policy covers the risk of a pillion rider. The deceased, though related to the owner-driver, was present as a pillion rider at the time of the accident and thus qualifies as a ‘third party’. The Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer, as the nature of the comprehensive policy extends to cover the pillion rider’s risk. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Yashpal Luthra, the High Court directed that liability for compensation to the deceased’s legal heirs must be fastened on the insurer. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Yashpal Luthra and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2011 ACJ 1415 (Delhi High Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Comprehensive (package) insurance policy extends ‘third party’ coverage to pillion riders; no distinction is made if the pillion rider is related to the owner-driver. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased was the wife of the owner-cum-driver of a motorcycle and was riding as a pillion when the accident occurred, resulting in her death. The claimant, her daughter, sought enhanced compensation. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation but directed only the owner/driver to pay, exonerating the insurer on the ground that the deceased was not a ‘third party’. The appeal challenged this finding, highlighting the existence of a comprehensive policy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Tribunals handling motor accident claim matters elsewhere in India |
| Follows | Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2011) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a comprehensive/package two-wheeler policy covers pillion riders as third parties, even if they are related to the owner or driver.
- Reinforces that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals should not exonerate insurers from liability for pillion riders when a comprehensive policy exists.
- Affirms and applies the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Yashpal Luthra, providing clear binding authority in Chhattisgarh.
- Lawyers representing claimants or insurers must review the specific wording of the insurance policy; comprehensive coverage mandates insurer liability for pillion rider claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the wording and scope of the insurance policy (Ex.D-1), identifying it as a comprehensive/package policy for the motorcycle involved.
- The court referred to the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which held that such policies cover pillion riders, and Tribunals need not inquire further as to insurer liability for their injury or death.
- The deceased was the owner/driver’s wife but was travelling as a pillion rider; the relationship did not alter her status under the policy’s terms.
- The court held that the deceased, as a pillion rider, fell within the category of ‘third party’ for insurance purposes under a package policy.
- The Claims Tribunal erred in absolving the insurer; liability should rest with the insurer, not only the owner/driver.
- Consequently, the insurer was ordered to pay the awarded compensation with interest.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimant):
- The insurance policy was a comprehensive/package policy covering risks to pillion riders.
- The Tribunal erred in holding the deceased was not a third party; sought directions against the insurer based on policy coverage.
- Relied upon the Delhi High Court’s decision in Yashpal Luthra.
Respondent (Insurance Company):
- Supported the Tribunal’s reasoning and opposed the appeal (specific content of opposition not detailed beyond this).
Respondent No.1 (Owner/Driver):
- No appearance; none present though served.
Factual Background
The deceased, Dorothiya Minj, was riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, the owner of the vehicle. The accident resulted in her death. Her daughter, the claimant, sought enhanced compensation. The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹22,66,355 but held that the insurer was not liable for the pillion rider and directed payment by the owner/driver alone. The claimant filed an appeal challenging the exclusion of the insurer from liability.
Statutory Analysis
- The case is governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning appeals against awards by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.
- The High Court interpreted the effect of a comprehensive (package) policy under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Delhi High Court’s reading in Yashpal Luthra clarified that under a comprehensive policy, third-party protection extends to pillion riders, obviating the need for further inquiry by the Tribunal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations are noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court follows the Delhi High Court’s reasoning set out in Yashpal Luthra regarding insurer liability for pillion riders under package policies.