Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: imt 28 in Liberty Vuideocon General Insurance ... vs Mariappan on 29 August, 2023Matching Fragments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer would submit that even assuming that the deceased has travelled as a load man, he was not covered under the policy under Ex.R.3, that additional premium was paid only for the driver/cleaner/conductor-IMT 28 and that therefore, the said coverage cannot be extended to the deceased.
10. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaran Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Vs. Shabiullah and others (C.M.A.No.2183 of 2017 dated 12.09.2018) relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a similar set of facts, has specifically observed that since the insurance company had collected Rs.50/- as per IMT.28, two persons would be covered by the policy and as such, the deceased whether he is termed as a cleaner or a load man would be covered by the policy and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
“13.As regards the 2nd contention of Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy that the deceased travelled as a passenger in the Tractor, there is evidence to show that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deceased was travelling as a cleaner in the tractor. It is seen from the Policy that the premium of Rs.50/- has been collected as per the IMT.28 to paid driver/cleaner. IMT.28 provides for extra premium for driver or cleaner or conductor employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle and the premium applicable is Rs.25/- per person. From the Policy, we find that the Insurance Company had collected Rs.50/-, therefore, two persons would be covered by the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Policy. Hence, the deceased whether he is termed as a cleaner or a load man would be covered by the Policy.”
11. In the case on hand, it is evident from Ex.R.3-insurance policy that the insurance company has collected Rs.50/- towards legal liability to paid driver/cleaner/conductor-IMT 28. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench above referred, the deceased being a load man would be covered by the policy and as such, the contention of the appellant/insurer in this regard, are devoid of substances and the same is liable to be rejected.