9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of insurance policy regarding coverage for personal injury and property damage, liability of insurance company for death of insured under the policy.
Summary: 1. The appeal raised the question of whether the insurance policy's coverage of "unlimited personal injury and property damage" for a premium of Rs. 134 also includes the death and bodily injury of the insured. The appellants claimed that the language used in the policy indicates coverage for the insured, while the insurance company argued it only relates to property damage. 2. The deceased had obtained a loan for a truck under a scheme requiring personal driving, and had insured the truck for Rs. 10 lakhs for personal injury and property damage. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellants, noting the premium paid was for unlimited personal injury and property damage, as stated in the policy. 3. The insurance company appealed to the High Court, which set aside the trial court's judgment, stating that the payment was for covering risks beyond statutory liability for third-party risks, not for personal injury or death of the insured. 4. The insurance company's argument was based on the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms of the insurance policy, contending that the coverage for personal injury and property damage referred to the insured's liability towards third parties, not personal coverage for the insured. 5. The insurance company claimed that the mention of "unlimited personal injury" in the policy was an oversight or mistake, contradicting the submission made in the trial court that such wording was limited to third-party liability. 6. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's finding, as the insurance company's stand in its written statement regarding the oversight or mistake in the policy wording was not supported by evidence or application for amendment. The appeal was allowed, and costs were imposed on the parties. 7. The Court suggested that the appellants could apply to the Executing Court for further consideration, indicating a willingness for an expedited review if such an application is made.
|
