Summary
The Supreme Court upheld personal-accident cover for a passenger killed during a sightseeing glider flight in Canada. The glider was a duly licensed aircraft, and the policy’s undefined standard-aircraft and air-charter terms were construed in the insured’s favour. Hiring the two-seat glider with its pilot qualified as an own-use charter for this policy. A round trip remained passenger travel, and the record established payment despite absence of the ticket.
Issues
- Whether the glider and operator met both exceptions to the policy’s aviation exclusions.
- Whether the deceased was a fare-paying passenger despite the round-trip itinerary.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1), Aircraft Act, 1934The statutory definition expressly included gliders, supporting the meaning of aircraft under the undefined policy term. (¶¶ 8, 8.2, 8.5)
Held
- Both aviation exclusion exceptions had to be satisfied: travel in a duly licensed standard aircraft and fare-paying passenger travel with a regular scheduled airline or air charter company. The separate adventure-sport exclusion did not expressly list gliding. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7)
- The glider qualified as an aircraft. Neither the policy nor the examined licensing framework supported the proposed powered-versus-unpowered distinction as defining standard aircraft. Ambiguity was construed against the insurer; expressly listed exclusions for other gliding activities did not establish an exclusion for this flight. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11)
- Private registration, the business licence and the Canadian safety report establishing regulatory compliance supported the finding that this aircraft was duly licensed. No contrary requirement was proved on the record. (¶¶ 10, 10.1)
- The alleged attorney correspondence was hearsay, and a renewed investigation commissioned after the National Commission decision could not supply material readily obtainable earlier. Hiring the whole two-seat craft, one seat being occupied by its pilot, supported own-use charter status under the policy’s ambiguous term. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5)
- A sightseeing flight beginning and ending at the same place still carried a passenger. The fixed consideration was established on the record notwithstanding absence of the ticket, so the deceased was a fare-paying passenger. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 13)
Result
Insurer’s appeal dismissed; National Commission’s award of Rs 1 crore with 8% annual interest upheld.