The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of insurance policy conditions should consider the presence of specific exclusions, and in the absence of such exclusions, the Insurance Company may be held liable to pay under the policy.

B. Rajendran, J.

Both the appeals are filed by the Insurance Company. Since the claim arises out of the same accident, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. The case of the claimants is that the deceased were working in the lorry rig unit belonging to one Senniappan on a monthly wages of Rs. 4,500/-. On 08.12.1999 at about 3.30 a.m., when they were working in a bore-well, they were crushed to death by falling stones from above. On a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court granted compensation of Rs. 2,21,370/- and Rs. 2,19,950/-. Challenging its liability, the Appellant/Insurance Company has filed these appeals.

3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would only contend that the insurance policy would cover the rig as well as the lorry only when the lorry is in operation in the road. When the lorry is employed for digging a bore-well, it becomes only a tool and at that point of time, it is not on the road nor is it moving and therefore, it cannot be construed as a transport vehicle and hence, motor accident claims petition will not lie as per the provisions of Motor India Tariff Condition Nos. 37 and 47. Since Condition No. 47 contemplates that when the vehicle is used as a tool Insurance Company will not be liable, as per the policy, they will not be entitled to pay the amount. The accident is admitted.

So is the relationship of employer employee. Liability alone is questioned on technical ground.

4. Old Condition No. 37 and New Condition 47 read as under:

Condition No. 37:

Mobile Cranes/Drilling Rigs.

It is hereby declared and agreed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this policy that in respect of the Motor Vehicle the Company shall be under no liability.

(a) u/s I of this Policy in respect of loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto except or loss or damage arising directly from fire, explosion, self ignition or lightning or burglary, housebreaking or theft.

(b) u/s II except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of liability incurred by the Insured arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto.

IMT.47. Mobile Cranes/Drilling Rigs/Mobile Plants/Excavators Navies/Shovels/Grabs/Rippers.

It is hereby declared and agreed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Policy that in respect of the vehicle insured the Insurer shall be under no liability-

(a) u/s I of this Policy in respect of loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto except for loss or damage arising directly from fire, explosion, self ignition or lightning or burglary housebreaking or theft.

(b) u/s II except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of liability incurred by the insured arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents would contend that Ex. A-3 - Insurance policy would indicate that there is no such exclusion specifically mentioned in the policy. Unless and until a specific exclusion is made in the policy, the presumption is that the policy covers every accident. Admittedly, both the lorry and the rig are insured. In such circumstances, once a death occurs due to an accident, automatically, insurance cover comes into play. When the lower Court has adopted right multiplication factor, there is no need or necessity for considering the appeal.

6. Heard both sides.

7. At the time of admission of the appeals, the following questions of law were framed:

1. Whether the lower Court has not grossly erred in holding that an occupant in the Rig