Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the liability fastened on it for payment of compensation of Rs.13,15,200/- for the death of Siddaramu, who was a cleaner in the insured vehicle which was a Bus.

2. It is the principal contention of the insurer that the evidence on record indicates that there were two drivers already traveling in the Bus and it's liability would be covered only in respect of two drivers and not for the cleaner.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand contends that the policy indicates that the insurer collected a sum of Rs.100/- as premium and the policy also indicates that IMT.28 endorsement would be applicable.

4. IMT.28 of the India Motor Tariff Reads as follow:

"IMT.28. LEGAL LIABILITY TO PAID DRIVER AND/OR CONDUCTOR AND/OR CLEANER EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF INSURED VEHICLE (For all Classes of vehicles.) In consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 25/- notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer shall indemnify the insured against the insured's legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ,the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law and subsequent amendments of these Acts prior to the date of this Endorsement in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured herein and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent.

Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of the Policy except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. *In case of Private cars/ motorised two wheelers (not used for hire or reward) delete this para."

5. It is thus, clear that if an IMT.28 endorsement is found on the policy of the insurance, the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation for the personal injury suffered to any paid driver, or a conductor or a cleaner could be attracted.

6. Since admittedly, a sum of Rs.100/- has been paid and IMT.28 endorsement has been made on the policy of the insurance, it is clear that the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation for the death of Siddaramu, the cleaner.

7. Thus, there is no grounds to entertain the appeal is therefore, rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE HA