BENGALURU: The insurer is very much liable to pay compensation in respect of a spare driver under section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, if there is only one claim under the policy, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court has ruled in a recent judgement.
“However, if there are two separate claims in respect of driver and spare driver unless additional premium is paid the insurer may not be liable to pay for both the drivers. If the claim is in respect of only one driver even if he is not actually driving at the time of the accident still the insurer is liable to pay under Section 147 of MV Act as a statutory liability,” justice HP Sandesh observed in his order while upholding the orders passed by commissioner for Workmen compensation in Haveri district.
On February 28,2011, two orders were passed by wherein Rs 3,26,410 compensation with 12% interest was awarded vis-a-vis claim petition pertaining to death of Shamiulla and compensation of Rs 3,99,345 with 12% interest was awarded in claim petition pertaining to death of Irfan, who also happens to be Shamiulla’s son as well.
Both of them had died on May 26,2009 when the lorry in which they were traveling and being driven by Majju Majjumeerpasha, another son of Shamiulla.
The insurer company had challenged the verdict. The contention was that that the Commissioner has blindly held that Shamiulla was the second driver in the vehicle when the claimants had failed to produce any documents to show the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and Nasrulla Shariff, owner of the vehicle and also failed to produce the driving licence of the deceased, arguing that itself goes to show that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident.
As regards to Irfan, the insurer claimed that there was no document was produced to show that he was working as a cleaner and the driver of the lorry is not examined in the case to prove the case of the claimants.
According to the company, the only inference could be drawn is that Irfan was traveling as a passenger with his father.
However, justice Sandesh, after perusing records, noted that the owner of the vehicle had claimed that the deceased were working for him.
“No doubt, in the cross-examination, it is elicited that no document is obtained from the owner to show that both of them were working with him but owner himself made statement before the police on the next day of the accident , that both of them were working with him and in order to rebut the same, insurance company has not examined the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and hence the very contention of the Insurance Company that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the spare driver cannot be accepted” the judge further observed while dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance company.
In addition, the separate appeal filed by the family members of the deceased was also rejected by the judge.
Go to Source