For a labourer in a goods vehicle, an insurance policy covering statutory risk limits the insurer's liability solely to the prescribed amount payable under the governing compensation act, rather than the full quantum of damages determined under general motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original opponent no.2 – insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 24th September, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur in MACP no.495 of 2010. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants - respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled to recover sum of Rs.7,29,000/- from the original opponent nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, together with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization with proportionate costs. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the appellant-Insurance Company, mainly disputing the liability to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants.

2. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 6th February, 2015 had admitted the appeal. While considering their interim application for stay, this Court had directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation with the concerned Tribunal, permitting the claimants to receive 20% of the deposited award amount and remaining 80% was directed to be invested in the fixed FDRs, initially for a period of two years, which was directed to be renewed pending the adjudication of the appeal. Thus, this Court has stayed the execution, implementation of the award, under challenge, pending the appeal.

3. Ms. Dimple A. Thakar, learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal mainly on the grounds raised in the appeal memo disputing their liability to pay any amount of compensation. It was submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error despite cogent evidence being brought on record to hold the appellant insurance company liable to pay compensation.

3.1 The attention of this Court was invited to the evidence of the Branch Manager of the insurance company, recorded at Exh.42, wherein he has categorically deposed that the insured of the vehicle has paid premium of Rs.5,730/-. As can be gathered from the policy produced at Exh.32, it indicates that Rs.5,580/- is paid towards third party basic risk coverage and Rs.100/- has been paid towards compulsory personal accident to owner - driver and Rs.50/- has been paid towards Workmen’s compensation to cover risk of employee. She has therefore submitted that in absence of any other premium being paid, there was no coverage of risk of labourer travelling in the insured vehicle. There being no contractual liability incurred, has been covered to hold the appellant - insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.

3.2 Alternatively, learned advocate had submitted that even considering the statutory provision Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act, it excludes risk of any employee of owner of vehicle except covered under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. At the best the appellant - insurance company can be held liable to pay co