IMPORTANT POINT
The insurance policy covering a conductor's risk is valid under IMT-28, and the distinction between conductor and cleaner is not legally sustainable.

ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1.Present is an owner’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 05.05.2016 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) in Claim Case No.353/2014 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant.

2.The gist of claim before the Tribunal in short was that on 06.05.2011, deceased Pradeep Singh, who was working as a conductor & cleaner in the bus bearing registration No.CG 10 A 9222 had climbed on the roof of the said bus to load luggage. All of sudden, the driver of the said bus respondent no.5 Parmeshwar Jaiswal drove the bus negligently, due to which, Pradeep Singh fell down from the bus and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.7,51,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, award total compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered and saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle against which the present appeal has been filed by the owner.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a valid policy covering the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The deceased was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle. As per the Imposed Condition IMT-28, the risk of the conductor or cleaner was also covered and therefore, there was no violation of any policy conditions. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability and prays for allowing the appeal by holding the Insurance Company also liable for payment of compensation.

4.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.6 opposes the prayer of the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference.

5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.The Tribunal held, on the basis of insurance policy Exhibit D-1, that deceased Pradeep Singh was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle whereas the policy covered the risk of a third party as well as a driver and a cleaner. The risk of the conductor was not covered. Hence, the Tribunal exonerated the respondent No.6 insurance company from its liability of payment of compensation on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered, which has been challenged by the registered owner in this appeal.

7.From the evidence presented and the document Exhibit D-2, the Tribunal has found it proved that deceased Pradeep Singh was a conductor and it is also proved from his conductor license Exhibit D-2. As per the insurance policy Exhibit D-1, the premium paid is as follows:-

8.The policy also contains the following endorsement:-

“Subject to IMT Endorsement Printed herein/attached to: IMT-28, IMT-21”

9.The other condition related documents are not attached with the policy Exhibit D-1. The said condition related documents have been submitted by the appellant party along with the appeal memo in which IMT-28 is as follows:-

IMT. 28 Legal Liability to paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle

(For all Classes of vehicles)

In consideration of an additional premium of Rs.25 notwit