Liability under motor vehicle insurance extends only to employees if additional premiums for coverage are paid as per relevant statutory provisions.

1. These civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed against the award dated 9.11.2012, made in MCOP Nos. 763 of 2007 and 240 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Tiruvannamalai.

2. The issues involved in both the appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellant - claimant in both the appeals filed MCOP Nos. 763 of 2007 and 240 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Tiruvannamalai, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 each as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 21.9.2007.

4. According to the appellant in both the appeals, on the date of accident, the appellant in CMA No. 1628 of 2013 travelled as cleaner and appellant in CMA No. 569 of 2014 travelled as loadman in the mini lorry bearing registration No. TN 25 - H 5167 belonging to the respondent No. 1 from Thiruvannamalai to Thirukovilur. While nearing Sadaikatti village, the driver of the mini lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing registration No. TN 23 - B 3744 belonging to the respondent No. 2 which was going ahead of the mini lorry and caused the accident. In the accident, appellant in both the appeals sustained multiple grievous injuries and fractures. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini lorry belonging to the respondent No. 1 and hence, appellant in both the appeals filed the present claim petitions, claiming compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as owner and insurer of the mini lorry and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 as owner and insurer of the lorry respectively.

5. The respondent No. 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. The respondent No. 1, owner of mini lorry, filed separate counterstatements in both the claim petitions and denied all the averments made by the appellant in both the appeals. According to the respondent No. 1, at the time of accident, the appellant in both the appeals along with one Muthuraman travelled in mini lorry belonging to the respondent No. 1 as coolies sitting in the cabin. The driver of the said mini lorry drove the same carefully, observing all the traffic rules. The driver of the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 2 suddenly stopped the vehicle without any signal and hence, the driver of the mini lorry dashed against the lorry and accident occurred. The respondent No. 3, insurer of the mini lorry, is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1. In any event, the appellant in both the appeals have to prove their age, avocation and income, injuries suffered and disability sustained to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

7. The respondent No. 3, insurer of the mini lorry, filed separate counterstatements in both the claim petitions and denied all the averments made by the appellant in both the claim petitions. According to the respondent No. 3, at the time of accident, the respondent No. 1, owner of the mini lorry, has paid premium only for driver, owner and cleaner and not for loadmen. Hence, respondent No. 3 - insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by the appellant in both the appeals who travelled as loadmen at the time of accident. The accident occurred only when driver of the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 2 suddenly stopped the vehicle. Hence, respondent Nos. 2 and 4, as owner and insurer of the lorry, are liable to pay compensation to the appellant in both the appeals. In any event, appellant in both the appeals have to prove their age, avocation and inco