Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Shanthavva And Ors. on 1 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ1222, ILR2006KAR1109, AIR 2006 (NOC) 705 (KAR), 2006 (2) AIR KANT HCR 367, 2006 A I H C 1631, (2006) 3 RECCIVR 540, (2006) 41 ALLINDCAS 209 (KAR), (2006) 3 ACC 813, (2006) 2 ACJ 1222, (2006) 4 CIVLJ 23, (2006) 2 TAC 706
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. One Ashok Mudukappa Bhandari is the deceased. The wife and children are the petitioners. The deceased is a spare driver of the truck. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,69,000/- to the petitioners and directed the insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal.
2. Section 147 proviso(1) (a) reads thus:
147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability,- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx Provided that a policy shall not be required-
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or underlining emphasized by me) The Counsel for the insurer argued that the words "engaged in driving" the vehicle would mean the driver on the steering and not a spare driver.
3. The Central Motor Vehicle Rules permit employing an additional driver. Continuous long driving causes exhaustion and tedium further exposes to the risk of accident, therefore engaging spare driver, is permitted by law. The tariff regulations permit the coverage of risk of spare driver on payment of additional premium.
4. The word "engaged in driving the vehice" should not be interpreted to mean only the driver on the steering excluding a spare driver. The spare driver is also very much a person engaged in driving the vehicle, may be on shift basis. The insurer is very much liable to pay compensation to a spare driver Under Section 147 of M.V. Act if there is only one claim under the Act Policy. 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 respcet of only one driver even if he is not actually driving at the time of accident still the insurer becomes liable to pay Under Section 147 of the M.V. Act as a statutory liability. The decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Khasim lays down that the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the spare driver by virtue of provisions of rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules and Section 147 of the M.V. Act which insists statutory cover for employees employed in connection with the motor vehicle. Therefore the insurer in any circumstance cannot avoid payment of compensation to a spare driver.
5. The liability of the insurer would be as per the terms of the W.C. Act as it is a case of Act policy. The computable income is Rs. 1,000/-. The relevant factor 211.79. The total compensation payable would be Rs. 2,11,790/- with statutory interest at 12% as against Rs. 2,69,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The balance of compensation shall be payable by the owner. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above