Sri Sattu @ Settu vs Sri A Ayub on 29 November, 2022
During the cross examination of RW.1, he has admitted
that the policy was given to heavy goods vehicle and the
policy was comprehensive. He has also admitted that an
additional premium of Rs.100/- was collected. He has
admitted that as per law 6 workmen are included in policy.
On perusal of Ex.R.2, it is clear that additional premium
of Rs.100- is collected for liability to workmen greater than
6 and the policy was a package policy. As per IMT 39, on
payment of additional premium, the policy covers the
liability of paid driver (or cleaner or conductor or person
17 MVC 7162/2022
SCCH-14
employed in loading/or unloading but in any case not
exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner).
Therefore, it is clear that respondent No.2 cannot escape
from its liability of paying compensation to the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1.2022 Live
Law (SC) 56 between (M/s Mangilal Vishnoi Vs.National
Insurance Co.Ltd., and others) and MFA 6413/14 (MV)
between (Sri.Sattu @ Settu Vs. Sri.A.Ayub and another),
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka have held that cleaner and helper
are used interchangeably and under IMT 40 even a cleaner
is entitled to get compensation. Therefore, the Respondent
No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has claimed for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- but he is entitled only for a sum of
Rs.,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization. Therefore, the petition needs to
be allowed. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held in the
18 MVC 7162/2022
SCCH-14
affirmative.