Insurance policies must reflect coverage based on premiums paid; liability cannot be evaded if an additional premium for employee risk is paid.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1, The insurance company has disputed its liability to pay the compensation determined in M.A.C.P. No. 324/2004 by the M.A.C.T., Jalna.

2. Heard Mr Swapnil Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr Swapnil Mule holding for Mr R.V. Gore, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr B.R. Kedar, learned counsel for respondent No. 8.

3. Mr Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company invited my attention to the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the deceased was travelling in a tipper bearing registration No. MH 10 A 6700 as a cleaner. The tipper was insured with the appellant. It was a ‘Act policy’ and thereby covering third party risk. He invited my attention to the insurance policy of the vehicle (tipper) vide Exh. 37. He pointed out that schedule of premium and submitted that risk of the cleaner is not covered. The Tribunal has committed grave error in fastening the liability on appellant/insurance company jointly and severally with the owner of the vehicle. He submitted that the appellant/insurance company needs to be absolved from the liability in view of the provisions of section 147 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

4. Mr Swapnil Mule, learned counsel for the original claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 6 supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and the defence raised by the insurance company and rightly turned down the defence by assigning the cogent reasons. There is no error on the part of the Tribunal while fastening the liability on the appellant to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally with the owner. Mr Mule further submitted that if this court comes to the conclusion that the risk of the cleaner is not covered by the insurance policy of the vehicle, the order of pay and recover may be passed by placing reliance on the citation and in case of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sajui P. Paul & Anr. reported in 2013 AIR (SC) 1064.

5. Mr B.R. Kedar, learned counsel for respondent No. 8/owner of the vehicle submitted that if the insurance policy of the vehicle vide Exh. 37 is carefully studied, one would find that respondent No. 8/owner of the vehicle has paid additional premium of Rs. 25/- covering the risk of one employee. It covers the risk of the cleaner who was travelling in the tipper when met with an accident. Mr Kedar, learned counsel invited my attention to section 147 (1) (b) more particularly provisio and argued that the risk of the cleaner is covered by the insurance policy of the vehicle vide Exh. 37. The Tribunal has rightly held that the insurer and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable. Mr Kedar, learned counsel has placed his reliance on the citation in case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 2877 .

6. I have gone through the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal more particularly in respect of defence raised by the appellant/insurance company, relevant evidence and the findings recorded by the Tribunal. I have also carefully examined the insurance policy of the vehicle more particularly schedule of premium. The schedule of premium of the vehicle (tipper) reads thus -

Schedule of Premium B.T.P. BASIC 800.00 Compulsory PA to Owner-Driver 100.00 Amount 200000 WC to employee 1 25.00 __________ Total Liability Premium Rs. 925.00

7. Having regard to the above referred schedule of premium, it is very much clear that the owner of the vehicle has paid additional premium of Rs. 25/- in respect of one employee and that has covered the risk of the cleaner. When the owner of the vehicle has paid