LUCKNOW: A public interest litigation (PIL) before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has raised a question that could affect scores of private vehicle owners. The petition seeks clarity on whether passengers travelling in private cars should be covered under mandatory standalone third-party motor insurance policies.The PIL has been filed by advocate Dhruv Kumar, a former insurance company branch manager with nearly three decades of experience in the sector. He has made the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) the respondent.Under the Motor Vehicles Act, every vehicle owner must purchase third-party insurance, which covers compensation for injury, death or property damage caused to others in an accident. Vehicle owners can either buy a standalone third-party policy or a comprehensive policy, which also covers damage to their own vehicle.According to the petitioner, both types of policies charge the same premium for the mandatory third-party liability component. However, there is a significant difference in the protection they offer.He claims that while occupants travelling in a private car are covered under comprehensive (package) policies, they are excluded from standalone third-party policies. As a result, if a passenger dies or suffers injuries in an accident, the insurer may reject the claim under a liability-only policy, leaving the vehicle owner personally responsible for paying compensation.The petition argues that this difference arose because of a communication issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) in March 1978, which allegedly narrowed the scope of an earlier TAC Board resolution passed in January 1978. The petitioner contends that the original resolution intended occupant coverage to apply to both comprehensive and third-party policies, but the later communication limited it to comprehensive policies. He further claims that an IRDAI circular issued in 2009 continued the same interpretation.The PIL also relies on RTI replies and historical insurance documents to argue that insurers do not charge any additional premium for extending occupant coverage under liability-only policies.According to the petitioner, this has created confusion among policyholders and insurers regarding the actual extent of insurance protection available.The petitioner has asked the High Court to quash the disputed circulars and direct the IRDAI to extend occupant coverage under standalone third-party policies in line with the original TAC resolution.The case is currently at a preliminary stage. The High Court is yet to examine the merits of the petition, and the IRDAI has not filed its response. The matter is listed among the top 10 cases before the Lucknow Bench on August 24.
