Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per Ex.R1, the appellant had paid premium of Rs.150/- towards PF for owner/driver and legal liability to paid driver under the IMT 28". As per IMT 28 mentioned in the policy, it includes liability of driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle. Therefore, even if it is accepted that deceased was cleaner of the bus, then also respondent No.2 - insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted fact by the claimant and respondent No.1 - insured that deceased was conductor of the bus. Under those circumstances, in view of payment of extra premium of Rs.150/- (100+50) under the IMT 28, respondent No.2- NC: 2023:KHC:34293-DB insurer is liable to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation. Therefore, prayed to set aside the said finding and direct the insurer to pay the compensation.

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:34293-DB stated that she had no idea as to what had written in the prosecution papers. It shows the innocence of the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate evidence properly and erred in holding that liability of the deceased was not covered under the policy of the insurance.

24. It is not in dispute that liability of conductor is covered in the insurance policy. Even in written statement of respondent No.2 at paragraph No.11, it is mentioned that "the policy of insurance covered liability of 48 passengers, one driver and one conductor. In Ex.R1 - Respondent No.2 had collected additional premium for compulsory PA for owner driver is Rs.100/-, LL to paid driver IMT 28 as Rs.50/- and legal liability to passenger Rs.37,030/-. IMT 28 is explained in Ex.R1, which reads as under:

"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.)

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:34293-DB In consideration of an additional premium of Rs.50/- notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer shall indemnify the insured against the insurer's legal liability under the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 or at Common Law and subsequent amendments of these Acts prior to the date of the 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".

28. The claimants had proved before Tribunal that deceased was conductor of the bus. Ex.R1 cover the risk of conductor since additional premium was collected under the clause IMT 28. The Tribunal had erroneously held that risk of cleaner was not covered under Ex.R1 and hence fastened the liability only on the owner of the bus that needs to be interfered.

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:34293-DB

29. Accordingly, we answer the above said question in the 'Affirmative' and pass the following: