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.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray,J.

1. Heard Mr.Khan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Claimants.

2. It is submitted that during pendency of the appeal claimant no.5, namely Basant Baral in MACA No.454 of 2020 and Respondent No.6 in MACA No.538 of 2020, died on 7th November 2021 and as such, it is prayed to delete his name since all other L.Rs are already on record.

3. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 24th February, 2020 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar in M.A.C. Case No.3289 of 2014, wherein compensation to tune of Rs.12,04,000/- along with interest @7% per annum has been granted from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 15th April, 2014.

4. It is submitted by Mr.Khan on behalf of the Insurer that legal liability for the deceased is not covered as per the terms of Insurance Policy and so, the Insurer is not liable to indemnify the compensation amount. It is further submitted that the deceased, namely, Trinath Baral was travelling in the offending Eichar Van bearing Registration No.OD-07B-7752 as an additional driver in addition to one Manas Chandra Jena, the driver of the said vehicle, who also died in the same accident. The Workmen Compensation Case was filed by the L.Rs of said Manas Chandra Jena and award was made in their favour.

5. On the other hand, MACA No.454 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that no amount towards parental consortium has been granted to the children.

6. First dealing with the objection raised on behalf of the Insurer, it is relevant to refer the conditions of the policy. As per the copy of the policy under Ext.B, premium for legal liability, as per IMT 28, has been paid for three persons @Rs.50/- for one person. IMT 28 specifies legal liability for the driver, conductor and cleaner employed in connection with operation of the vehicle, in respect of personal injury or death.

7. In the instant case, the admitted position remains that the deceased Trinath Baral was employed as an additional driver in the offending vehicle along with other deceased, namely, Manas Chandra Jena. It also remains admitted that at the time of accident Manas Chandra Jena was on wheels and Trinath Baral was in the cabin. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has received premium of Rs.150 for three persons towards legal liability. The status of the deceased as an additional driver is admitted and he was inside the vehicle though Manas Chandra Jena was on the driver seat. No other person except two deceased persons was present in the vehicle. So as an employee of the vehicle, legal liability in respect of the deceased is covered in terms of the Insurance Policy since the premium for three persons employed in connection with the vehicle has been accepted. The vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle, where engagement of conductor and cleaner is insignificant. Moreover, engagement of additional driver in long-run goods carriage vehicles is very common. Therefore, the words “Conductor & Cleaner” specified in IMT 28 can be interpreted to include one additional driver employed in connection with the use of vehicle. Thus, the submissions made on behalf of the Insurer that the deceased cannot be treated either as a driver or conductor or cleaner is found unacceptable. Since the legal liability is within the permissible limit of three persons, the employment of the deceased as the additional driver in the vehicle cannot be said as beyond the liability under IMT 28. Hence, the finding of