The Supreme Court has directed an insurance company to pay Rs. 1 crore to the mother of a youth who died while sightseeing in a glider in Canada. The youth was in a two-seater glider over British Columbia when it hit a Cessna aircraft, killing him and the pilot. The insurer rejected the claim arguing that a glider is not a standard aircraft carrying passengers and, therefore, it was not covered under the policy. It further argued that he was on a round trip with no destination and therefore, he was not a ‘passenger’. The National Consumer Commission and the court rejected these contentions and ruled that a glider is an aircraft according to the Aircraft Act. The judgment in AXA General Insurance Co vs Praiya Paul pointed out that the insurer had not excluded gliders from liability, while it had specifically excluded hang-gliding, ballooning, parachuting, and other adventure sports. The youth had ‘chartered’ the glider, according to the court. The term charter is not defined in either Indian or Canadian regulations. If the meaning is ambiguous, the interpretation should benefit the insured, the judgment said. It further stated that a person taking a round trip with no destination would still be a passenger, as one in a sightseeing bus which returns to the starting point.
