In, The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tahaseentaj W/O Shamiulla@Gullab & Others, a Single Bench of Karnataka HC has held that If the claim is in respect of only one driver even if he is not actually driving at the time of the accident still the insurer is liable to pay under Section 147 of MV Act as a statutory liability.
Facts
The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Commissioner is that deceased Shamiulla when the husband (claimant/respondent No.1) was travelling in a lorry as a second driver along with his son and the said vehicle met with an accident as a result of which Shamiulla and Irfan both sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Hence, wife of Shamiulla, son and daughter of Shamiulla filed two claim petitions before the Commissioner seeking for compensation for the death of Shamiulla and Irfan.
The Commissioner considering both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petitions awarding compensation with interest. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.
Contention Made
Appellant: the claimants had failed to produce any documents to show the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.4 and also failed to produce the driving licence of the deceased
Further, substantial questions of law are raised contending that the Commissioner was not justified in holding that the policy issued by the Insurance Company covered the second driver.
Respondent: that additional premium of Rs.50/- is paid in terms of the policy and that All India Permit was given to the said vehicle and when All India Permit is given, second driver is also covered under the policy.
Further, in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Khasim, wherein it has been laid down that the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the spare driver by virtue of provisions of Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act which insists statutory cover for employees employed in connection with the motor vehicle.
Court Observation
A Single Bench of Karnataka HC observed that, in United India Insurance Company vs Smt. Shanthavva & other, wherein in similar circumstances this Court held that the spare driver is also very much a person engaged in driving the vehicle, may be on shift basis and that the word ‘engaged in driving the vehicle’ should not be interpreted to mean only the driver on the steering excluding a spare driver, the insurer is very much liable to pay compensation.
But, If the claim is in respect of only one driver even if he is not actually driving at the time of the accident still the insurer is liable to pay under Section 147 of MV Act as a statutory liability.
Court Judgment
A Single Bench of Karnataka HC while dismissing the appeal by Insurance company has held that the commissioner did not erred in awarding compensation and finding of the Commissioner that relationship of employer and employee has been established and that both the deceased were travelling in the vehicle as spare driver and cleaner, is correct.
Case: The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tahaseentaj W/O Shamiulla@Gullab & Others
Citation: M.F.A.No.23205/2011 c/w M.F.A.No.23206/2011
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice HP Sandesh
Decided on: 26th August, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
