United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.E. Reetha and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017/9TH JYAISHTA, 1939 MACA.No. 1822 of 2013 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P(M.V)1375/2003 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY DATED 30-05-2013 APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) ## RESPONDENTS/CLIAMANTS AND IST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.E.REETHA, W/O. JAYANANDAN, KUNHIPUNATHIL HOUSE, P.O. MUTHIYANGA - 670 691. 2. ROUNAK JAYANANDAN (MINOR) - REPRESENTED BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT M.E. REETHA, W/O. JAYANANDAN, KUNHIPUNATHIL HOUSE, - P.O. MUTHIYANGA - 670 691. 3. DRONAK JAYANANDAN (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT, M.E. REETHA, W/O. JAYANANDAN, KUNHIPUNATHIL HOUSE, P.O. MUTHIYANGA - 670 691. 4. K.P. SREEMATHI, D/O. KUNHAMBOOTY, KUNHIPUNATHIL HOUSE, P.O. MUTHIYANGA - 670 691. 5. NOUFAL K.T., S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KASEELAZ, P.O. MUTHIYANGA, (VIA) PATHAYAKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 691. R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.** ------------------------------------------------- ## **M.A.C.A.No.1822 of 2013** ------------------------------------------------- ## **Dated this the 30[th] day of May, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This appeal arises out of the award dated 30.5.2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)No.1375 of 2003, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one K.P.Jayanandan, the husband of the 1[st] respondent, father of the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents and son of the 4[th] respondent, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.1.2003 while travelling as pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-13/2450 ridden by the 5[th] respondent. The said motor cycle, which was owned by the deceased, was insured with the appellant insurer. At the place of accident, the motor cycle capsized allegedly due to the rash and negligent riding of the 5[th] respondent. The deceased who fell down and sustained injuries, had succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as Extra Departmental Postman at Muthiyanga Post Office, drawing a salary of ₹2,750/- per month. Claiming a total compensation of 10,00,000/- under₹ different heads, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 2 2. The 5[th] respondent rider filed a written statement denying the negligence attributed on him. The 5[th] respondent contented that when the motor cycle reached the place of accident, a boy crossed the road all on a sudden. He applied brake to save the boy and in that process the motor cycle capsized and the deceased who was a pillion rider fell down and sustained fatal injuries. 3. The appellant insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid insurance policy for the motor cycle involved in the accident, which stood in the name of the deceased. The said contract of insurance is to indemnify the insured for the liability incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injuries to any person carried in the vehicle or damages to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of use of the vehicle. The appellant insurer contended that, Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not require the insurer to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. Where insured owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party, the insurer also has no liability. The owner of the vehicle can claim compensation, provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. As such, that the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation from the appellant insurer. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 3 of the claimants and Ext.B1 copy of the insurance policy was marked on the side of the insurer. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the question of liability, the claimants contended that Ext.B1 policy was a comprehensive policy. Since additional premium has been paid to cover personal accident risk, the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Per contra, the insurer contended that Ext.B1 policy being a package policy, the personal accident cover on payment of additional premium is limited to 1,00,000/-₹ . 6. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the 5[th] respondent rider. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of 9,91,500/- under different₹ heads, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. On the question of liability, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the appellant insurer, since Ext.B1 policy is a package policy and additional premium has also been paid to cover personal accident risk. Accordingly, the appellant insurer was directed to deposit the above said amount before the Tribunal, within 2 months from the date of award. It was also ordered that, the amount of M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 4 ₹10,000/- awarded as compensation towards loss of consortium shall be paid to the 1[st] claimant widow and the balance amount shall be apportioned among claimants in the ratio 40:25:25:10. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent the appellant insurer is fastened with the liability to pay the amount of compensation, in excess of the personal accident cover, the insurer is before this Court in this appeal. 8. We heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant insurer and also the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, who are the claimants before the Tribunal. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 5[th] respondent rider of the motor cycle. 9. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant insurer. 10. The fact that the deceased is none other than the registered owner of the motor cycle involved in the accident is not in dispute. At the time of accident, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the said motor cycle ridden by the 5[th] respondent rider. At the place of accident, the motor cycle capsized. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. In the impugned M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 5 award, the Tribunal accepted the case of the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the 5[th] respondent rider. The said finding of the Tribunal has attained finality, in the absence of any challenge made by the appellant insurer or the 5[th] respondent rider. 11. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the deceased owner was travelling in his motor cycle as pillion rider. In order to decide the question as to the extent of liability of the insurer in terms of Ext.B1 policy, we have to look into the requirements of a policy of insurance and the limits of liability, as contemplated under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Section 147 of the Act, as substituted by Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994, reads thus; “ **147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-** (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- - (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and - (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; - (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 6 Provided that a policy shall not be required-- - (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-- - (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or - (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or - (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. **Explanation.--** For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1) shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- - (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; - (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 7 this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” ## 12. In **Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha [(2007) 9** **SCC 263]** , on the question as to the maintainability of the claim made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court held that the liability of the insurer is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the injured person, a third person, or in respect of damages to property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, does not arise. In the said decision, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the deceased was the owner of the insured Maruti van. While he was driving the said vehicle it dashed against a tree on the road side, when he attempted to save a goat which ran across the road. 13. In **Jhuma Saha's case (supra)** , the Apex Court relied on its earlier judgment in **Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2004)** M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 8 **8 SCC 553]** wherein it was held that, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 of the Act does not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 14. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. As per subsection (1) of Section 140, where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of that Section. Sub-section (4) of Section 140 of the Act provides that, a claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 9 share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. Sub-section (5) of Section 140 provides further that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force. 15. In **Khadeeja and others v. Rushdi and another (2016 (3) KLT 400)** a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J) was a member, held that the liability to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the principle of no fault liability, is on the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., the insured, which liability has to be indemnified by the insurer under a contract of insurance. However, the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. 16. In **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sasilatha (1999 (3) KLT 519)** a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunitha Rathi [(1998) 1 SCC 365]** held that, the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 10 indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. It is therefore clear that if the insured is not held liable, insurer cannot be directed to indemnify the insured. The only liability for the insurer is to indemnify the insured and not to pay any compensation for the alleged bodily injuries sustained by her. A reading of Section 140 would make it clear that no fault liability is casted on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the insurer. If the owner of the vehicle is found liable under Section 140, naturally, the liability of the insured also would arise. 17. In **Sasilatha's case (supra)** the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the owner of a jeep herself has come forward for compensation under Section 140 of the Act against the insurer of her own vehicle which was held to be the offending vehicle. On the basis of evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the Driver of the KSRTC bus, but, on the other hand the accident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Jeep. The Division Bench, after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sunitha Rathi's case (supra)** , in which it was held that the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance, held that such a claim made by the owner of the M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 11 vehicle cannot be maintained under Section 140 of the Act. 18. In **Yallwwa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2007) 6 SCC 657]** the question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Act is an appealable one. In that context, the Apex Court held that Section 140 of the Act, which provides for no fault liability, uses the words 'accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle', 'the owner of the vehicle' and when more than one vehicles are involved, 'the owners of the vehicles' shall jointly and severally be liable to pay compensation. The said provision, therefore makes the owners of the vehicle liable, but not the insurer per se. 19. In **New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi [(2009) 2 SCC 417]** the Apex Court held that, by taking an 'act policy' the owner of the vehicle fulfills his statutory obligation as contained in S.147 of the Act. If the liability of the insurer is contractual, its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. 20. In **Khadeeja's case (supra)** , after referring to the decisions referred to supra, the Division Bench of this Court held that, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes the owner of the vehicle liable but not the M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 12 insurer per se. The liability of the insurer under Section 140 of the Act therefore arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. When the liability of the insurer is to indemnify the insured and not to pay compensation for the bodily injury or death of the insured, the claim made by the insured for that purpose cannot be sustained under Section 140 of the Act. 21. In **Jhuma Saha's case (supra)** the Apex Court, relying on its earlier judgment in **Dhanraj's case (supra)** held that, Section 147(1)(b) of the Act in no uncertain terms covers only the risk of a third party. If that be so, unless additional premium was paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle, the legal heirs of the deceased insured who died in an accident involving no motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving, are not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. 22. In **Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K. V. [(2008) 7 SCC 428]** the Apex Court held that, a distinction has to be made between a contract of insurance in regard to a third party and the owner or driver of the vehicle. In terms of Section 147 of the Act a contract of insurance must be taken by the owner of the vehicle only in M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 13 regard to reimbursement of the claim to a third party. When, however, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks, it is permissible to enter into a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms that contract. The liability of the insurer to reimburse the owner in respect of a claim made by the third party, thus, is statutory whereas other claims are not. 23. In **Sadanand Mukhi'** s case ( _supra),_ the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the owner of the motor cycle got the said vehicle insured with the appellant Insurance Company. On 8.9.2000, the son of the insured while riding the motor cycle met with an accident and he died. The accident took place as a stray dog came in front of the vehicle. The appellant insurer contended that the rider of the motor cycle is not a third party. Further, the accident occurred while the deceased himself was riding the motor cycle in uncontrollable speed and in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause of accident. Therefore, in absence of negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle, the claimants cannot seek compensation. 24. In **Sadanand Mukhi's case (supra)** , after considering the requirements of policies and limits of liability under Section 147 of the M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 14 Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court held that, the said provision provides for two types of insurance; one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. In case the owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property; whereas the Insurance Company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident. Therefore, by taking an 'act policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. If the liability of the insurer is contractual, its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. 25. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan** **[(2013) 1 SCC 731]** , a decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which, the Lancer car involved in the accident was owned by a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Managing Director of the Company met with an accident while travelling in the said vehicle. Upholding the order of the Tribunal, the High Court treated the Company to be the owner of the vehicle and treated the Managing Director as a M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 15 passenger. Before the Apex Court, the insurer contended that, even assuming Managing Director not to be the owner, a non-fare paying passenger would not be covered under a comprehensive/package policy. After referring to the circulars issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) dated 16.11.2009 and 3.12.2009, the Apex Court held that a comprehensive/package policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. The Apex Court clarified that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in ' ' - respect of Act Policy which admittedly cannot cover third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is 'comprehensive/package policy', the liability would be covered. The law laid down by the Apex Court in **Balakrishnan's case** does in no way support the case of respondents 1 to 4/claimants, since death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle will not fall under the category of 'third-party risk of an occupant' of that vehicle. 26. In **Mini L. and others v. Gireeshkumar and another (2016 (4) KHC 935)** a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us (C.T. Ravikumar, J) was a member, held that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is categoric that the person who is liable to pay the compensation is the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the claimants who are the M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 16 legal heirs of the deceased owner are not entitled for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is the only provision under which a claim can be made for no fault liability. Virtually, the insurer is only indemnifying the insured owner. When the deceased is the insured owner, there will be no statutory liability upon the insurer, pertaining to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where third party claim against the insured owner need be indemnified. Being one of the two parties to the contract of insurance, the insured owner cannot be regarded as a third party. 27. In the instant case, Ext.B1 policy is a package policy for motorcycle/scooter. As per the policy schedule, the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle insured is 41,000/-, based on which 687.16₹ ₹ has been collected as premium under the head 'own damage basic'. Under the head 'liability', 160/- has been collected as premium under the head₹ 'third party basic'; 70/- under the head 'personal accident to 2 unnamed₹ passengers' (₹50,000/- per person); and ₹50/under the head 'compulsory personal accident to owner-driver' (₹1,00,000/-). 28. As per Section II of the terms and conditions of Ext.B1 policy, which deals with 'liability to third parties', subject to the limits of liability laid down in the Schedule thereto, the insurer will indemnify the insured in M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 17 the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death 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 the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured; (ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured. The aforesaid clause in Ext.B1 policy will not cover death or bodily injury to the insured owner who was carried in the motorcycle as a pillion rider. Being one of the two parties to the contract of insurance, the insured owner cannot be regarded as a 'third party'. 29. The 'personal accident cover to 2 unnamed passengers' does not also cover death or bodily injury to the insured owner, since, on consideration of payment of an additional premium of 70/- the insurer₹ has undertaken to pay compensation on the scale provided under 'IMT.16' for death or bodily injury sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or the paid driver. Therefore, the aforesaid clause in Ext.B1 policy will not cover the death of insured owner who was carried in the M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 18 motorcycle in question as a pillion rider. 30. On consideration of payment of an additional premium of ₹50/- under the head 'compulsory personal accident to owner-driver', Ext.B1 policy provides personal accident cover to owner-driver. As per the General Regulations under the Indian Motor Tariff framed by the Tariff Advisory Committee, the owner of insured vehicle holding an 'effective' driving license is termed as owner-driver for this purpose and the Personal Accident Cover is provided to the owner-driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver. 31. In **Khadeeja's case (supra)** the Division Bench of this Court held that, going by the General Regulations under the Indian Motor Tariff framed by the Tariff Advisory Committee, in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Insurance Act, 1938, a 'Liability Only Policy' covers third-party liability for bodily injury and/or death and property damage. It also covers Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver (not applicable to vehicles covered under Section E, F and G of Tariff for Commercial Vehicles). A 'Package Policy', in addition to the liability as above, covers loss or damage to the vehicle insured. The owner of insured vehicle holding an 'effective' driving license is termed as owner-driver for M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 19 this purpose and the Personal Accident Cover is provided to the ownerdriver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver. Only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving license. Hence compulsory Personal Accident Cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where the owner driver does not hold an effective driving license. The annual premium payable in this regard, in respect of motorised two wheelers is 50/- to cover a Capital Sum Insured₹ (CSI) to the tune of 1,00,000/-. ₹ 32. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that, since Ext.B1 policy is a package policy and additional premium has also been paid, the appellant insurer has the liability to pay the entire compensation of 9,91,500/-, together with interest and proportionate costs, is legally₹ unsustainable. In terms of Ext.B1 policy, the only liability of the appellant insurer is to satisfy a sum of 1,00,000/- under the ₹ 'compulsory personal accident cover to owner-driver'. In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the award dated 30.5.2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(M.V) No.1375 of 2003 by limiting the liability of the appellant insurer to M.A.C.A.No.1822/2013 20 ₹1,00,000/- in terms of Ext.B1 policy, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN Judge** TKS