Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Zubeda Begam W/o Late Abdul Mohamad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's examination of evidence and precedent on insurance liability. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 2. final ruling affirming the tribunal's liability decision. (Para 10) |
| 3. court's dismissal of the appeal. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Assail in the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) preferred by the appellant herein is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 02.09.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in MACC No.279/2021 by which the Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company/appellant herein firstly, to pay the amount to the claimants and thereafter recover from the owner as the terms and condition of the policy would not cover the Conductor (deceased) as no additional premium was paid in his respect.
2. Mr. Harishankar Patel and Mr. Ishwar Chandra, learned counsels for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company/appellant herein to pay and recover relying upon the principle of law laid down b
Insurance liability is established for the deceased conductor under the paid premium clauses of the applicable vehicle insurance policy.
The insurance policy covering a conductor's risk is valid under IMT-28, and the distinction between conductor and cleaner is not legally sustainable.
The court affirmed that an additional premium paid under IMT-40 covers the second driver, establishing that liability cannot exceed the terms of the insurance policy.
Insurance companies are not liable for employee injuries in vehicles unless additional premiums are paid for coverage under the policy.
The court affirmed the insurer's liability for the deceased as an additional driver, ruling that compensation must include parental consortium, enhancing the total to Rs.13,24,000.
Insurance Company cannot evade liability for compensation if additional premium for paid driver was accepted, regardless of the driver's employment status.
Insurance liability for owner-cum-driver remains if no valid license proof is provided by the insurer; coverage extends to claimed amounts under the policy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
