BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PRIYA PAUL & ANR.

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PRIYA PAUL & ANR.

The glider was an "aircraft" and, in the absence of a contractual definition or an express exclusion of gliding, a motorised or non-motorised glider fell within the Policy's phrase "standard type of aircraft"; the glider was duly registered and certified; the operator's practice constituted an air charter (own-use charter); and the deceased was a fare-paying passenger, therefore the claim was covered and the insurer's repudiation was not justified.

Parties
Appellant: BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.; Respondent: PRIYA PAUL & ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dated 22.05.2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Policy Exclusions, Definition of Aircraft, Charter Flights, Licensing of Aircraft, Passenger Status
Insurance Aviation Consumer Law Policy Exclusions Definition of Aircraft Charter Flights Licensing of Aircraft Passenger Status

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Appellant

PRIYA PAUL & ANR.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dated 22.05.2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the glider involved in the accident was an aircraft
  2. 2 Whether the glider was a standard type of aircraft under the Policy
  3. 3 Whether the glider/aircraft was duly licensed

Ratio Decidendi

The glider was an "aircraft" and, in the absence of a contractual definition or an express exclusion of gliding, a motorised or non-motorised glider fell within the Policy's phrase "standard type of aircraft"; the glider was duly registered and certified; the operator's practice constituted an air charter (own-use charter); and the deceased was a fare-paying passenger, therefore the claim was covered and the insurer's repudiation was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 22.05.2017 directing insurer to pay Rs. 1 crore with interest at 8% per annum upheld