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

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 07-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 583
583
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
PRIYA PAUL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3346 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Insurance – Aircraft Act, 1934 – Aircraft Rules, 1937 – Claim
filed by respondent no. 1 pertaining to an aviation accident leading
to the death of her son – The appellant-insurer repudiated the claim
on the basis that the deceased was travelling in a motorized glider
for sightseeing and hence was not travelling in a standard aircraft
and was further not a fare-paying passenger in any regular
scheduled airline or air charter company, which excluded the
accident from the purview of the policy – The National Commission
directed the insurer to pay an amount of Rs. 1 crore – On appeal,
held: The fact that the glider was motorized would not imply that it
was not an aircraft – The terms ‘aircraft’ and ‘glider’ have not been
defined within the policy – Even the aviation inspection report of
Transport Safety Board of Canada unequivocally referred to the
glider as an ‘aircraft’ repeatedly – Therefore, glider in question
must be regarded as an aircraft under the policy – The policy itself
does not define what a ‘standard type of aircraft’ is – The 1937
Rules do not maintain any uniform categorisation between powered
and non-powered aircraft, far from terming any of these as ‘standard’
or ‘non-standard’ – The National Commission rightly concluded
that had the insurer really intended to exclude gliding activity from
the purview of the policy, it could have done so expressly, similar to
the manner in which hang-gliding and para-gliding were excluded
– Similarly, insurer could have defined the phrase ‘standard type
of aircraft’ in the policy, but it chose not to – Now, it is not open to
the insurer to reject a claim by arguing that a glider is not a standard
aircraft by virtue of not principally being a powered aircraft –
International Civil Aviation Organisation defines a chartered flight
as a non-scheduled operation using a chartered aircraft – A charter
is stated to be a contractual arrangement between an air carrier
and an entity hiring or leasing its aircraft – In the instant case,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
offering sightseeing services on a glider plane for a fixed
consideration, the aircraft was given on hire, this practice may
constitute on own-use charter – The Company offering service was
an incorporated Company – Further, policy omitted to define ‘air
charter company’, therefore the benefit of the ambiguity in meaning
will to go the claimant – Insofar as argument that deceased was not
a passenger is concerned, the purpose for the journey was to fly
over various scenic spots, and after completion, the glider was to
return to a designated location, presumably from where it took off –
Thus, the deceased was a fare-paying passenger on the glider in
question – Therefore, the accident out of which the instant claim
arose was completely covered under the ambit of the policy – No
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment – Aeronautics Act,
1985 of Canada.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether the glider involved in the accident was an
Aircraft.
1. It becomes important to note that though the glider in
question was equipped with an engine, this was mainly for the
purpose of adding self-launching capacity to the vehicle, as
evident from the Transport Safety Board of Canada (TSBC)
Report. Be that as it may, the fact that the glider was motorised
would not imply that it was not an aircraft at all. Even the TSBC
Report unequivocally refers to the glider as an “aircraft”
repeatedly. Importantly, the terms “aircraft” and “glider” have
not been defined within the Policy. In such circumstances, this
Court is of the view that the glider in question must be regarded
as an aircraft under the Policy. [Para 8.5][594-D-E]
Whether the glider in question was a standard type of
aircraft.
2. The 1937 Rules do not maintain any uniform
categorisation between powered and non-powered aircraft, far
from terming any of these as “standard” or “non-standard”. It
does not appear to be the case that one set of rules is prescribed
for powered aircraft, and another distinct set for non-powered
aircraft. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the Rules to further
the Appellant’s contention in this respect. [Para 9.8][597-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
3.  In the instant case, this Court agrees with the conclusion
of the Nat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.