Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant submitted that even though the claimant has traveled as security guard for escorting the lorry but it is in connection with the employment for escorting the tanker lorry which contained hazardous material. Therefore, he is to be construed as employee. It is also submitted that under the insurance policy an additional premium of Rs.75/- is NC: 2023:KHC-D:8911 collected for Non Fare Paid Passenger (NFPP). Therefore, as per the condition enumerated in the policy, as stipulated in the IMT Regulations, the risk of claimant is also covered. Further submitted that, the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the tanker lorry. Hence, there is no violation of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore submitted that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the owner. It is also submitted that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Therefore prayed for enhancement of compensation.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8911

8. In the present case as per Ex.R.1 insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs.75/- is collected under the head Non Fare Paid Passenger (NFPP). It is revealed from Ex.P.1 FIR that the claimant was travelling for escorting the tanker lorry as a security guard and there was another cleaner and driver. Whether this claimant was employee under the owner of the tanker lorry is not forthcoming from the evidence. It is the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the claimant was employee of some other agency/firm, but he was engaged for the purpose of escorting the tanker lorry since the tanker lorry contained hazardous material of spirit.

Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy.

10. In the present case the claimant has not travelled by payment of fare or hiring the vehicle or for reward purpose. The claimant has travelled for escorting NC: 2023:KHC-D:8911 the tanker lorry which contained hazardous material of spirit. It is mandatory that a security personnel shall escort tanker lorry which contained a hazardous material. Therefore the claimant cannot be strictly construed as an employee under the owner of tanker lorry. But the claimant can be categorized as charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck directly connected with the journey. Therefore as per this NFPP, the risk of the claimant is covered under the insurance company. Therefore the claimant cannot be categorized as a gratuitous passenger but he is charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. Therefore when additional premium of Rs.75/- is collected, even though the injured person is not a cleaner or employee as enumerated in Section 147 of the M.V.Act, but he was travelling having direct connection with the journey. The risk is covered when additional premium is collected under the Non Fare Paid Passenger (NFPP). Therefore in this case since NFPP is collected, as per IMT Regulation No.37, the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner of the tanker