Summary and Analysis of Manjusha & Ors. Vs. United India Assurance Company Limited & Anr.,(Civil Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Manjusha & Ors. vs. United India Assurance Company Limited & Anr.
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act):
  Section 147: Statutory liability limited to third-party risks.
  Section 163A: "No fault liability" compensation (not applicable here).

• Insurance Contract Law:
  Interpretation of "comprehensive policy" and "personal accident cover."

• Legal Principles:
  Pleadings and Proof: Defenses must be raised in pleadings and proven with evidence.
  Contractual Liability vs. Statutory Liability: Distinction between insurer's obligations under policy terms vs. MV Act.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Family of deceased Sachin (driver of the car, brother of owner).
  Respondents: United India Assurance Co. (insurer) & vehicle owner (deceased's brother).

• Incident (15.07.2011):
  Car tyre burst during travel → vehicle toppled → Sachin (driver) died of head injury.
  Other occupants (owner, his wife, deceased's wife) injured.

• Claims Tribunal (MACT):
  Awarded ₹25.82 lakhs as compensation (based on income, funeral costs, consortium).

• High Court:
  Reduced compensation to ₹2 lakhs, citing "limited liability" under personal accident cover.

• Supreme Court Appeal:
  Challenged reduction of compensation.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issues Decided:

1. Applicability of Personal Accident Cover:
   Insurer's Claim: Personal accident cover (for owner/driver) had a ₹2 lakh cap as per policy terms.
   Appellants' Rebuttal:
   Insurer never raised "limited liability" defense in Tribunal or High Court pleadings.
   Policy document (Ex. P56) not produced before Supreme Court.
   No witness/exam to prove ₹2 lakh cap; claimant not cross-examined on this.

2. Statutory vs. Contractual Liability:
   Insurer Cited Precedents (e.g., Dhanraj v. New India Assurance):
   *"Statutory liability (Section 147 MV Act) excludes owner/driver as 'third party'."*
   Court's Distinction:
   "This case involves contractual liability under a comprehensive policy with paid 'personal accident cover' – not statutory liability."

3. Failure of Pleadings and Proof:
   Critical Finding:
   "Insurer did NOT plead 'limited liability' (₹2 lakh cap) in written statement or appeal memo. Defense cannot be raised for the first time in Supreme Court."
   Evidence Gap:
   IMT guidelines (relied on by insurer) not produced in evidence.
   No proof that policy specified ₹2 lakh cap for personal accident cover.

Legal Principles Reinforced:

• Pleadings Mandatory:
  "No defense can be entertained without foundational pleadings and evidence."

• Burden of Proof on Insurer:
  "Insurer must prove policy limitations – absent such proof, contractual liability is unlimited."

• Comprehensive Policy Scope:
  "Additional premium for 'personal accident cover' implies contractual obligation beyond statutory limits."

Outcome

• Tribunal's Award Restored:
  Insurer directed to pay full compensation (₹25.82 lakhs) with 8% interest.
  Payment within 2 months to appellants.

• High Court Order Set Aside:
  "Reducing compensation to ₹2 lakhs was erroneous due to insurer's procedural lapses."