Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40007
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, SHIRCY V., JJ
ANEESH – Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, – Respondent
MACA 2157 2011
SRI.REJI GEORGE, SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY, SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA), SMT.JAISY MATHEW, SMT. K.S. SANTHI
Additional premiums in insurance policies can extend coverage to all employees, not just limited categories, under the Motor Vehicles Act provisions.
Headnote:
Liability - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 146, 147, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Court interprets statutory liability and insurance coverage, ruling that additional premium covers liability for cleaner as well as driver.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a cleaner injured when falling from a bus, sought compensation from the insurance company of the bus. The tribunal found the driver negligent but exonerated the insurer claiming no insurance for the cleaner's liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance policy, which included an additional premium, covered the liability for the cleaner, contrary to the tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurer based on a narrow interpretation of the policy.
Issues: Whether the insurance policy covered the liability for the cleaner working on the bus, despite the insurer's contention that it only covered the driver, conductor, and ticket examiner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the additional premium paid under the insurance policy indeed covers the legal liabilities for all employees, including the cleaner, thus the insurer cannot be exonerated from compensation claims.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the insurer is held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
J U D G M E N T
Abdul Rehim, J:
The claimant in OP (MV) No.2426/2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein, challenging the award to the extent it exonerated the 3rd respondent-insurance company (the respondent herein) from the liability to pay the amount of compensation determined.
2. The accident in question occurred on 15-10-2005.
The claimant was working as cleaner in a stage carriage Bus. At the spot of the accident, the claimant fell down from the bus, allegedly because the driver of the bus had suddenly took it forward in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant sustained severe injuries. The driver and the owner of the bus as well as its insurer were impleaded in the claim petition as respondents. The Tribunal found that the accident in question occurred due to the negligence on MACA No.2157/2011 -2-
the part of the driver of the bus. But the respondent insurance company took a contention that they are not liable to pay the compensation, because there was no contract of insurance agreeing to indemnify the owner with respect to the liability of compensation on account the injury sustained to a cleaner employed in the bus. It is was pointed out that, the proviso to Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require the policy of insurance to cover the liability with respect to the cleaner. The statutory liability of the insurer is only to cover the liability of the Driver, Conductor and Ticket Examiner employed by him. But in the case at hand, Ext.B1 policy produced by the appellant would indicate that, the insurer had received additional premium for covering liability of the employees in the bus. But the Tribunal observed that, the policy does not show that the respondent had received any additional premium for covering the liability of the cleaner. The Tribunal referred to Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , which insist upon a policy of insurance complying MACA No.2157/2011 -3-
with the requirements under Chapter XI of the Act. Under the proviso to Section 147 (1) of the Act it is mentioned that, the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death of an employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of the bodily injury sustained by the employees arising out of and in the course of his employment, other than the liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 . Therefore it is evident that, the statutory liability which is required to be complied with, in a policy under the Act, is only the liability with respect to the claim of an employee which arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is held therein that, in the case of a public service vehicle, such liability will extent to any person engaged as a Driver or Conductor of the vehicle or a person examining the tickets. Therefore the Tribunal observed that, the statutory requirement under is to cover the legal liability of employees only such as the driver, conductor and ticket examiner. The Tribunal further observed that, as per IMT 40, the premium to be calculated MACA No.2157/2011 -4-
and paid while taking the insurance of such vehicle is @ Rs.25/- per employee. It is found by the Tribunal that, as per Ext.B1, the premium of Rs.25/- paid would cover only the legal liability of the driver and it will not cover the legal liability of the cleaner employed by the insured. Therefore the insurer was exonerated from the liability for payment of the amount of compensation determined. The Tribunal directed the respondents 1 & 2 therein to make payment of the compensation, since they are jointly and severally liable.
3. The appellant is challenging the findings of the Tribunal based on Ext.B1, B1 (a) & B1 (b). Referring to Ext.B1 (a) the certificate of insurance policy, it is pointed out that, the policy issued by the respondent insurance company at the relevant time was a package policy. It is pointed out that, apart from payment of premium for the basic liabi
