THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusSMT. HONNAMMA & ORS.

                  [2025] 6 S.C.R. 141 : 2025 INSC 625

              The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
                         Company Limited
                               v.
                     Smt. Honnamma & Ors.
                            R1: Smt. Honnamma
                              R2: Kum. Bhagya
                              R3: Kum. Ramya
                              R4: Sri H. Nagaraj
                       (Civil Appeal No. 6336 of 2025)
                                  05 May 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court partly allowing the appeal of the respondents, enhancing the
       compensation and fastening the liability on the insurance company.

                                   Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.147 – Fatal accident –
       Compensation – Liability of the insurance company – Tractor
       insured with the appellant-insurance company attached to a
       trailer, and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, tractor
       and trailer toppled, person on the trailer, fell off the trailer,
       resulting in his death – Claimants-wife and minor daughters
       claimed compensation – Tribunal granted compensation of
       Rs.9,50,000/- and held that risk of employee of the tractor and
       trailer was not statutorily covered and fastened the liability
       to satisfy the award on the owner and the driver – Claimants
       sought enhancement of compensation – High Court enhanced
       compensation to Rs.13,28,940/- and fastened the liability of
       compensation on the appellant – Correctness:
       Held: If an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits
       a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability
       would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the
       accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain
* Author
142                                                             [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized –
       Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities and
       cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality – On
       facts, the main cause of the accident was the tractor which
       was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of
       events, the trailer upturned – Thus, the accident was caused by
       the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the
       tractor, the accident occurred – Liability of the tractor/its insurer
       extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the
       death of the deceased, through the trailer – Appellant ought not
       to be saddled with payment of compensation exceeding what
       the insurance policy provides for or the limit, if any, set under
       any law, whichever be the higher amount of the two – Amount
       exclusively payable by the appellant, however, in no case be less
       than Rs.9,50,000/- – No infirmity in the impugned order, either
       with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded or fixation
       of liability on the insurer-appellant for the accident. [Paras 11,
       12, 18, 19]

                                Case Law Cited
       United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa District v. Koduru
       Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830 – approved.
       Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009] 5 SCR 1098 :
       (2009) 6 SCC 121; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C M Jaya
       [2002] 1 SCR 298 : (2002) 2 SCC 278; Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa
       Bandappa Gandigude Since Deceased Through His LRs & Ors.
       Civil Appeal Nos. 5459-5460/2023; Ningamma v. United India
       Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] 8 SCR 683 : (2009) 13 SCC 710;
       K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022] 18 SCR 238 :
       2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338; Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager,
       United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025] 4 SCR 63 : 2025 SCC
       OnLine SC 563; Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Brij Mohan
       [2007] 6 SCR 843 : (2007) 7 SCC 56; New India Assurance Co.
       Ltd. v. Shantibai [1995] 1 SCR 871 : (1995) 2 SCC 539; Amrit
       Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Thapar [1998] 2 SCR 284 : (1998) 3 SCC
       744 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                              143

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

                              List of Keywords
     Motor accident; Death; Compensation; Beneficial and welfare-
     oriented legislation; Liability of insurance company; Trailer attached
     to tractor; Chain of events; Root cause of accident; Events which
     cannot be segregated or compartmentalised; Maximum amount
     payable; Recover differential amount; Total compensation awarded
     less maximum amount payable; Enhancement of compensation;
     Rash and negligent driving of the driver; Fixation of liability on the
     insurer for the accident.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6336 of
     2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2022 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 3659 of 2014

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     G. Balaji, Neeleshwar Pavani.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal mounts a challenge against the Final Judgment
     and Order dated 25.11.2022 in MFA No.3659/2014 (MV-D) (hereinafter
     referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single
     Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter
     referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appeal filed by
     the Respondents No.1 to 3 (herein) was partly allowed and the
     compensation awarded vide Award dated 02.04.2014 passed by
     the learned Senior Civil Judge & Member, Additional Motor Accident
     Claims Tribunal, Harihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) was
     enhanced from Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand)
     to Rs.13,28,940/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand
144                                                         [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Nine Hundred and Forty) keeping the interest component intact i.e.,
       6% per annum and liability was fastened on the Appellant (herein)
       to pay such compensation.

       BRIEF FACTS:
3.     On 29.02.2012, the deceased-Nagarajappa was travelling in a tractor
       and trailer as a coolie in order to unload the soil, which was loaded
       thereon. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent
       No.5 (herein), the tractor and trailer toppled causing injuries to the
       deceased-Nagarajappa, ultimately leading to his death. The wife
       and two minor daughters (Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein) of
       the deceased filed M.V.C. No.121/2012 before the MACT claiming a
       compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). The claimants
       in support of their case examined Respondent no.1, the wife of the
       deceased, as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to
       P10. On the other hand, the Appellant examined two witnesses as
       RW1 and RW2 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R7 i.e.,
       authority letter, policy schedule, charge-sheet, notice, agreement
       and RC books. The MACT after considering the evidence on record,
       partly allowed the claim vide Award dated 02.04.2014 and awarded a
       compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand)
       with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
       till its realization. The MACT held that the risk of employee of the
       tractor and trailer was not statutorily covered under Section 147(1)
       (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the
       ‘MV Act’) and fastened the liability to satisfy the award on the owner
       (Respondent No.4 herein) and the driver.
4.     The claimants filed appeal bearing MFA No.3659 of 2014 (MV-D)
       before the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
       On due consideration of the material before it, the High Court vide
       the Impugned Order partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the
       compensation to Rs.13,28,940/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-
       Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty) payable with 6% per annum
       interest from the date of petition till deposit. While doing so, the
       High Court fastened the liability of compensation on the Appellant-
       insurance company. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has filed the
       present appeal.
5.     The appeal qua Respondent No.5-driver stands dismissed in terms of
       Order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         145

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

     Despite due service of notice to Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4, none
     appeared to represent them.

     APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:
6.   At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
     MACT had holistically appreciated the facts and circumstances of
     the case and had exempted the appellant from incurring any liability
     of compensation, which aspect has been erroneously reversed by
     the High Court in the Impugned Order on unsustainable grounds. It
     was submitted that the insurance policy did not extend any coverage,
     either to the trailer or employees of the owner or any passenger
     travelling on the trailer. Despite categorical options for risk-coverage
     of these categories of persons/trailer(s), it was not subscribed to by
     the Respondent No.4-owner/policy-holder.
7.   It was argued that the High Court took a very naive and simplistic
     view of the matter ignoring the concerned respondent’s categorical
     admission regarding rash driving. Further, the High Court ignored that
     the Respondents No.4 and 5 had accepted the order of the MACT
     dated 02.04.2014 as they had not challenged the decision. It was
     argued that the High Court by awarding a sum of Rs. 13,28,940/-
     (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and
     Forty) exceeded the originally prayed for compensation in the claim
     petition. Moreover, it was urged that the Award was not in accordance
     with the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport
     Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
8.   Lastly, learned counsel relied on the decisions rendered in New
     India Assurance Co. Ltd. v C M Jaya, (2002) 2 SCC 278 to state
     that compensation could not exceed the limits of the insurance
     policy and on Dhondubai v Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude
     Since Deceased Through His LRs & Ors., Civil Appeals
     No.5459-5460/2023, to argue that liability cannot be fastened on
     the insurance company, when the deceased was travelling in an
     uninsured trailer.

     ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
9.   Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material/
     evidence on record. We have given serious consideration to the
146                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       issue as it raises a mixed question of fact and law where both have
       to be harmoniously balanced.
10. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the incident occurred
    while a tractor which was insured with the Appellant was attached
    to a trailer and on the trailer a person was present who due to an
    unfortunate accident, fell off the trailer which was being pulled by/
    driven by/attached to the tractor, resulting in the death of such person.
11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled
    by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased
    was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the
    above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason
    for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on
    the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain,
    we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a
    place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened,
    then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would
    not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was
    the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such
    sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was
    caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled
    by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident
    caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through
    the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles
    emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the
    trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company
    to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts
    in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited
    by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act,
    being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United
    India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National
    Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v
    Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC
    OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being
    the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of.
    For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits
    another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                        147

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

     chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which
     was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the
     action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or
     compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful
     of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be
     overshadowed by technicality.
13. In Dhondubai (supra), the Court stated:
           ‘5. In a matter of the present nature, the law is well
           settled that when a tractor and trailer are involved,
           both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be
           insured. Therefore, in a normal circumstance, when
           the appellant/claimant was travelling in the trailer which
           was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company
           cannot be fastened and to that extent the High Court
           was justified.’
                                                (emphasis supplied)

14. To our mind, the learned Judges in Dhondubhai (supra) did not
    lay down an absolute principle of law, but taking note of Oriental
    Insurance Co. Limited v Brij Mohan, (2007) 7 SCC 56, it was amount
    awarded by the High Court as compensation with the accrued interest
    and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.’ A decision by
    a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India
    Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa District v Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007
    SCC OnLine AP 830 is relevant:
           ‘1. This case has come before this Court on a reference
           made by a learned Single Judge of this Court as it
           was contended before the learned Single Judge by the
           appellant that as the trailer in which the deceased was
           travelling was not insured, although it was attached
           to the tractor which was insured, therefore no liability
           could be fastened upon the insurer.

           xxx
           13. Now on analysis of these judgments and the provisions
           of law which have been quoted above, we feel that
           the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned
148                                                  [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                    Supreme Court Reports


       Single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka
       Peddi Reddy (supra) and the reasons given by him
       are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles
       Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer
       and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which
       is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. We
       reproduce the Para 26 of the said judgment as under:
           “The word “vehicle” mentioned in Section 147
           is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles,
           which is stipulated in Section 146. Therefore,
           the expression vehicle wherever appearing
           in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as
           motor vehicle. The principle of claim for
           compensation in accidents arising out of the
           use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous
           liability and the negligence of the driver
           of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for
           maintaining a claim under the provisions
           of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself
           cannot be driven and it has to be carried or
           towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor
           or a like self-propelled vehicles. Therefore,
           the question of driving the trailer in a rash
           and negligent manner would not arise. It is
           only the prime mover or the motor vehicle
           which controls movement of the tractor and
           in case of the negligence driving of the trailer
           or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle
           and its insurer alone will be made liable for
           payment of compensation. But, since the
           trailer is attached can it be said that trailer
           should also be independently insured so as
           to avoid the liability of compensation in case
           of rash and negligent driving by the driver.
           That contingency would not arise, as it is
           only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may
           be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods
           vehicle. But, under the provisions of the
           Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         149

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

                is contemplated. When the trailer is attached
                to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer.
                There is no provision requiring the trailer
                to be separately insured to cover the third
                party risk. The reasons are obvious that
                it cannot be driven by the driver as in the
                case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a
                separate distinction has been drawn between
                the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible
                in all the definitions and more especially
                in Chapter XI. The same situation also
                persists in Chapter X in case of no fault
                liability wherein it has been stated that
                whether a death or a permanent disability
                of any person has been resulted from an
                accident arising out of the use of a motor
                vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no
                reference to vehicle as such. This aspect
                was never considered in any of the decisions
                relied on by the learned Standing Counsel
                for the Insurance Company and also for
                other side.”’
                    (underlined in original; emphasis supplied by
                                    us through the bold highlight)

15. Insofar as the Appellant’s reliance on C M Jaya (supra) is concerned,
    we may first set out Section 147 of the MV Act, as it currently stands:
           ‘147. Requirement 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 motor
150                                                     [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


            vehicle or damage to any property of a third
            party caused by or arising out of the use of the
            motor vehicle in a public place;
            (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to
            any passenger of a transport vehicle, except
            gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle,
            caused by or arising out of the use of the motor
            vehicle in a public place.
       Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
       clarified 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) Notwithstanding anything contained under any other law
       for the time being in force, for the purposes of third party
       insurance related to either death of a person or grievous
       hurt to a person, the Central Government shall prescribe
       a base premium and the liability of an insurer in relation to
       such premium for an insurance policy under sub-section
       (1) in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and
       Development Authority.
       (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) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a policy
       of Insurance issued before the commencement of the Motor
       Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall be continued on
       the existing terms under the contract and the provisions
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                           151

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

           of this Act shall apply as if this Act had not been amended
           by the said Act.
           (5) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the
           provisions of this Chapter or the rules or regulations made
           thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within
           the specified 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 or to such other
           authority as the State Government may prescribe.
           (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other 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.’
16. The provision supra is identical to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles
    Act, 1939, which was looked at in C M Jaya (supra), wherein a
    5-Judge Bench harmonised the decisions of the 3-Judge Benches
    in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Shantibai, (1995) 2 SCC 539
    and Amrit Lal Sood v Kaushalya Thapar, (1998) 3 SCC 744 on the
    extent of liability that could be fastened on the insurer. The Bench
    of 5 learned Judges held:
           ‘8. Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows
           that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated
           in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured
           to make payment of additional higher premium and
           get higher risk covered in respect of third party also.
           But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance
           policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited
           in respect of third party and it is limited only to the
           statutory liability. This view has been consistently
           taken in the other decisions of this Court.
           9. In Shanti Bai case [(1995) 2 SCC 539] a Bench of
           three learned Judges of this Court, following the case of
           Jugal Kishore [(1988) 1 SCC 626: 1988 SCC (Cri) 222]
           has held that:
152                                                   [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                    Supreme Court Reports


            (i) a comprehensive policy which has been
            issued on the basis of the estimated value
            of the vehicle does not automatically result
            in covering the liability with regard to third-
            party risk for an amount higher than the
            statutory limit,
            (ii) that even though it is not permissible
            to use a vehicle unless it is covered at
            least under an “Act only” policy, it is not
            obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get
            it comprehensively insured, and
            (iii) that the limit of liability with regard to
            third-party risk does not become unlimited
            or higher than the statutory liability in the
            absence of specific agreement to make the
            insurer’s liability unlimited or higher than
            the statutory liability.
       10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in
       Amrit Lal Sood [(1998) 3 SCC 744] it is clear that the
       view taken by the Court is no different. In this decision
       also, the case of Jugal Kishore [(1988) 1 SCC 626: 1988
       SCC (Cri) 222] is referred to. It is held:
            (i) that the liability of the insurer depends on
            the terms of the contract between the insured
            and the insurer contained in the policy;
            (ii) there is no prohibition for an insured
            from entering into a contract of insurance
            covering a risk wider than the minimum
            requirement of the statute whereby risk
            to the gratuitous passenger could also be
            covered; and
            (iii) in such cases where the policy is not
            merely statutory policy, the terms of the
            policy have to be considered to determine
            the liability of the insurer.
       Hence, the Court after noticing the relevant clauses
       in the policy, on facts found that under Section II(1)
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                             153

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

           (a) of the policy, the insurer has agreed to indemnify
           the insured against all sums which the insured shall
           become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or
           bodily injury to “any person”. The expression “any
           person” would undoubtedly include an occupant of
           the car who is gratuitously travelling in it. Further,
           referring to the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi
           [(1977) 2 SCC 745] it was observed that the said decision
           was based upon the relevant clause in the insurance
           policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the
           insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of
           the Act. As such, that decision had no bearing on Amrit
           Lal Sood case [(1998) 3 SCC 744] as the terms of the
           policy were wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant
           of the vehicle. Thus, it is clear that the specific clause in
           the policy being wider, covering higher risk, made all the
           difference in Amrit Lal Sood case [(1998) 3 SCC 744] as
           to unlimited or higher liability. The Court decided that case
           in the light of the specific clause contained in the policy.
           The said decision cannot be read as laying down that even
           though the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to
           the statutory requirement, an unlimited or higher liability
           can be imposed on it. The liability could be statutory or
           contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than
           what is required under the statute itself. However,
           there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting
           the parties from contracting to create unlimited or
           higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event,
           the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as
           specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher
           liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a
           term or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract
           of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be
           expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done,
           it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of
           insurance which is not permissible.
           xxx
           14. In the premise, we hold that the view expressed by the
           Bench of three learned Judges in the case of Shanti Bai
           [(1995) 2 SCC 539] is correct and answer the question set
154                                                              [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


              out in the order of reference in the beginning as under: In the
              case of the Insurance Company not taking any higher
              liability by accepting a higher premium for payment
              of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be
              liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) of the
              Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount.’
                                                       (emphasis supplied)

17. In this light, let us examine the insurance policy, holistically. Relevant
    clauses read as under:
              ‘The Policy does not cover:
              a) Use for Racing, Pace Making, Reliability trails or Speed
              Testing
              b) Use for the Carriage of passengers for hire or reward.
              c) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in
              all than is permitted under law.

              xxx
              LIMITS OF LIABILITY:
              Under Section 11-1 (i) of the Policy - Death of or bodily
              injury - Such amount as is necessary to meet the
              requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

              xxx
              B - LIABILITY
              3. Trailers (IMT 48) 0.001
              xxx
              Legal Liability:
              9. To Coolies (IMT 39) 3 0.00 2’
                                                       (emphasis supplied)



1.   0.00 refers to the ‘Premium in Rs’.
2.   Ibid.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         155

      The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v.
                      Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

18. What emerges is that the Appellant ought not to be saddled with
    payment of compensation exceeding what the insurance policy
    provides for or the limit, if any, set under any law for the time being
    in force, whichever be the higher amount of the two, in the underlying
    factual scenario. The amount exclusively payable by the Appellant,
    however, shall in no case be less than Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine
    Lakhs Fifty Thousand).
19. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the Impugned
    Order, either with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded or
    fixation of liability on the insurer-Appellant for the accident. The same
    shall be paid within two months from today after adjusting whatever
    has been paid earlier, in terms of Order dated 06.02.2023 passed
    in the present case. However, liberty is granted to the Appellant to
    recover the differential amount (if any), in terms of Paragraph 18
    supra i.e., total compensation awarded less the maximum amount
    payable, contractually or as per law (whichever be the higher amount),
    by the Appellant, from the Respondent No.4-owner.
20. Accordingly, subject to the above observations and directions, the
    appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain