BENGALURU: The insurer may be very a lot liable to pay compensation in respect of a spare driver below part 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, if there is just one declare below the coverage, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka excessive courtroom has dominated in a latest judgement.
“However, if there are two separate claims in respect of driver and spare driver unless additional premium is paid the insurer may not be liable to pay for both the drivers. 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,” justice HP Sandesh noticed in his order whereas upholding the orders handed by commissioner for Workmen compensation in Haveri district.
On February 28,2011, two orders had been handed by whereby Rs 3,26,410 compensation with 12% curiosity was awarded vis-a-vis declare petition pertaining to loss of life of Shamiulla and compensation of Rs 3,99,345 with 12% curiosity was awarded in declare petition pertaining to loss of life of Irfan, who additionally occurs to be Shamiulla’s son as effectively.
Both of them had died on May 26,2009 when the lorry during which they had been touring and being pushed by Majju Majjumeerpasha, one other son of Shamiulla.
The insurer firm had challenged the decision. The rivalry was that that the Commissioner has blindly held that Shamiulla was the second driver within the car when the claimants had failed to supply any paperwork to point out the connection of employer and worker between the deceased and Nasrulla Shariff, proprietor of the car and likewise failed to supply the driving licence of the deceased, arguing that itself goes to point out that the deceased was travelling as a passenger within the car on the time of the accident.
As regards to Irfan, the insurer claimed that there was no doc was produced to point out that he was working as a cleaner and the driving force of the lorry will not be examined within the case to show the case of the claimants.
According to the corporate, the one inference may very well be drawn is that Irfan was touring as a passenger along with his father.
However, justice Sandesh, after perusing data, famous that the proprietor of the car had claimed that the deceased had been working for him.
“No doubt, in the cross-examination, it is elicited that no document is obtained from the owner to show that both of them were working with him but owner himself made statement before the police on the next day of the accident , that both of them were working with him and in order to rebut the same, insurance company has not examined the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and hence the very contention of the Insurance Company that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the spare driver cannot be accepted” the choose additional noticed whereas dismissing the enchantment filed by the insurance coverage firm.
In addition, the separate enchantment filed by the members of the family of the deceased was additionally rejected by the choose.
Source: auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com