Insurance Company cannot evade liability for compensation if additional premium for paid driver was accepted, regardless of the driver's employment status.

ORDER :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.7 of 2020.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 28.10.2019, deceased Meet was going from Morbi to Lajjai by driving Car No.GJ-36-L-5371 of grandfather of his friend and when he reached the place of accident, construction work of bridge was going on and deceased took turn and due to that car turned turtle. As a result, the accident took place and deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, offence to that effect is registered before the Tankara Police Station vide FIR being I-C.R.No.64 of 2019. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed aforestated claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,25,000/-. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 18.04.2024 has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned advocate Ms.Pathak mainly argued that deceased Meet was not paid driver of the errant vehicle. He would further submit that deceased was driving the vehicle owned by grandfather of his friend and met with an accident and lost his life. Thus, it could not be said that deceased was a paid driver to meet with legal liability of paid driver of Rs.150/- taken up in the insurance policy. Therefore, he would submit that learned Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite there being breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Upon above submissions, he would submit to admit this appeal.

4. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award, what could be noticed that legal heirs of deceased have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for getting compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- on structured formula. That fact which could be noticed from impugned judgment is that on 28.10.2019, deceased Meet was going from Morbi to Lajjai by driving Car No. GJ-36-L-5371 owned by grandfather of his friend and when he reached the place of accident, construction work of bridge was going on and deceased took turn and due to that car was capsized. As a result, the accident took place and deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. What could be gathered from the discussion made by the learned Tribunal under the head of liability is that it is believed by the learned Tribunal that Insurance Company has taken up premium of Rs.150/- for legal liability of paid driver. Upon such consideration, learned Tribunal fastened liability upon the Insurance Company.

5. Let me refer relevant discussion made by the learned Tribunal which is reproduced as under :

“(14) So far as liability is concerned, the learned advocate for opponent no. 2-Insurance Company has vehemently argued before the Tribunal that on the ground that policy of the offending offending vehicle Hyundai Car No.GJ-36L-5371 is a Private Car Policy- Bundled policy and at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle Hyundai Car is not an employee of owner of Hyundai car and he is also not a paid driver, the deceased was driving car of his friend Arjun’s grand- father, Hyundai car, and hence, there is a breach of terms and conditions of Insurance policy of offending vehicle Hyundai car i.e. deceased is not entitled to get any amount of compensation. L.A. for the opponent no.2 has further contended that deceased/Meet i.e. driver of Hyundai Car met with an accident, as deceased stepp