Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 627
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Smti Tulsi Devi And Anr - Respondents
MFA/10/2022
I.A.(Civil)/117/2022, I.A.(Civil)/1216/2019
Decided on : 18-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MR K K BHATTACHARYYA, MS. R DEVI, MS JONA TALUKDAR, MR J JOHN
For the Respondent: MR. K BHATTACHARJEE, MR. S KHAN, MS. A BARMAN, MS B TALUKDAR, MR. M H LASKAR
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.
Headnote:(A) Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Indian Motor Tariff Act - IMT-40 - Compensation awarded to claimant for death of second driver in an accident - Insurance policy coverage for second driver questioned - Court held that extra premium paid covers second driver’s liability - Liability of insurer affirmed. (Paras 2, 4, 18, 24)
(B) Insurance Liability - Scope of coverage - Insurer cannot be held liable for risks not covered by the policy - Additional premium can extend coverage to second driver under certain conditions. (Paras 7, 10, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from an award of Rs. 9,94,469/- to the claimant, wife of the deceased second driver, who died in a truck accident on 18.02.2015. The insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Commissioner was justified in holding the insurer liable for the compensation awarded to the claimant, as the extra premium paid covered the second driver. (Paras 24)
Issues: The main issues were whether the insurance policy covered the second driver and if the extra premium paid extended coverage to him. (Paras 6, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the additional premium paid under IMT-40 covers the second driver, affirming that liability cannot be imposed on the insurer beyond the policy terms. (Paras 19, 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. The instant appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner-Cum-Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Sonitpur, Assam in SWC Case No. 09/2015 dated 28.11.2018, wherein the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation had awarded the sum of Rs. 9,94,469 (Rupees Nine Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine) only to the claimant to be paid by the present appellant Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd with an interest @ 12% per annum to be borne by the appellant compensation from the date of the accident i.e., 18.02.2015. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the instant appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company.
3. Facts of the case in brief is that on 18.02.2015 Sh. Lakhan Karki was proceeding with truck Registration No. AS/01FC/9951 as a second driver, when they reached the Rattchjara NH 44, due to mechanical defect, the vehicle capsized and the driver who drove the vehicle died on the spot, while the second driver/Sh. Lakhar Kachi succumbed to his injuries and died on 08.07.2015. An accident case was registered under Umkiang GDE No. 03 dated 18.02.2015. The accident vehicle was insured with the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd vide policy No. 3379/01135080/000/00 which was valid from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015 and thus was valid when the accident occurred on 18.02.2015. The claimant who is the wife of Sh. Lakhan Karki/second driver claimed for compensation which was registered as SWC Case No. 09/2015. The Insurance Company arrayed as opposite party No. 2 submitted their written statement and questioned the claim of the second driver.
4. The learned trial court framed the following issues:-
i) Whether the claimant was workman within the meaning of the Employee’s Compensation Act 1923 as amended?
ii) Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment?
iii) Whether the said claimant is entitled to get compensation; if so, what shall be the quantum and from whom?
5. Both the parties adduced their evidence and after hearing both the parties, the impugned award as mentioned above was duly made by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation, by deciding all the issues in favour of the claimant. Aggrieved by the said, the instant MFA has been filed by the appellant.
6. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court on 18.01.2021 are:-
1. Whether the learned Commissioner was justified to fasten liability upon the appellant in as much as in the insurance policy there was no coverage for the 2nd driver?
2. Whether extra premium of Rs. 50/- paid by the insured cover the risk of 2nd driver or it cover the wider liability of the 1st driver?
7. Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before amendment is applicable herein, since the accident happened before the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, the proviso of Section 147 of the Act states that- “ provided that a policy shall not be required – (i) To cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee—
(a) Engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) If it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) If it is not a goods carriage , being carried in the vehicle or (ii) To cover any contractual liability”
He submitted that the learned Commissioner failed to take into account that the deceased was a second driver who was
