The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.114 of 2015 B. Rupulu Patro and Others …. Appellants Mr. Bharat Jalli, Advocate -versus- The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Respondents Mr. M.C. Nayak, counsel for Respondent No.1 Mr. B.N. Rath, counsel for Respondent No.2 ….
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
Decision
ORDER 16.2.2023 Order No. 09. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. Jali, learned counsel for claimant – Appellants, Mr. M.C. Nayak, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.1 and Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for owner – Respondent No.2. 3. The tribunal has directed the owner to bear the compensation amount instead of the insurer, which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. The impugned award is dated 18th December, 2014 of learned 4. 2nd MACT (SD), Berhampur passed in MAC No.396/2011 (318/2009- GDC), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been granted on account of death of deceased B. Satyanarayan Patro in the motor vehicular accident dated 26th February, 2009. 5. The deceased was helper of the offending vehicle, i.e. passenger bus bearing registration number OR-07-L-1199. The employment of the deceased as the helper or ticket examiner in the offending vehicle is not disputed. Further, a copy of the insurance policy has been produced by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the owner – Respondent No.2 before this court. The same is taken on record. 6. Perusal of said policy No.3158 of 2008 shows payment of total premium of Rs.24,939/- and in the schedule of premium, payment of extra premium of Rs.150/- has been shown in respect of liability for the employee / Driver. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the insurer – Respondent No.1, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. does not dispute the validity of said policy in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. But he contends that since the deceased was an employee of the offending vehicle and he has preferred claim under the MV Act, the liability should not go beyond the schedule of consideration prescribed under the EC Act. This is objected by Mr.Rath as well as by Mr. Jali with their submission that once extra premium has been accepted by the insurer in respect of the employee of the vehicle, the liability on the part of the insurer goes unlimited. 8. Since the validity of said policy and payment of premium in respect of offending vehicle is not disputed by the insurer, the finding of the tribunal that the insurance company has no statutory obligation to cover the risk of the deceased as the helper, is set aside. Section 167 of the MV Act gives choice to the dependents of the victim to approach for compensation either under the MV Act or under the EC Act and the law is settled on this score. Page 2 of 4 9. No dispute is there at the bar with regard to limits of liability relating to the employees of the vehicle within the limitations prescribed in Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. But in the case at hand, the admitted fact remains that an extra premium of Rs.150/- has been paid and accepted in respect of liability of the employees of the vehicle. As seen from the copy of the insurance policy, the same has been issued in compliance to the terms prescribed in Section 147 of the MV Act. Further it is brought to the notice of the court that as per the regulations prescribed by IRDA in Indian Motor Tariff, if extra premium of Rs.50/- is taken for the employee of the vehicle the liability goes beyond the limits. The relevant endorsement in the Indian Motor Tariff (IMT) reads as follows: “IMT 40 Legal Liability to paid driver and/or Conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of Motor vehicle. (For buses, commercial vehicles tariff) taxis and motorized three/four wheelers under In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary the insurer shall indemnify insured against his legal liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of that Act prior to the date of this endorsement, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law 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 and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent. The premium to be calculated and paid while taking insurance of the vehicle concurred at the rate of Rs.25/- per driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner.” 10. This IMT Endorsement No.40 is also certified in the contents of the present policy. It is clear from perusal of the insurance policy that extra premium has been paid for three employees of the vehicle and therefore what is contended by Mr. Nayak to limit the liability as per Page 3 of 4 the provisions contained in the EC Act is not found justified. It is manifest from the endorsement made in the policy as well as in the IMT that the limits of liability in respect of the deceased, who is admittedly an employee of the vehicle, is unrestricted. 11. There being no further challenge raised in any other aspect including quantification of compensation amount, this court confirms the amount granted by the tribunal in the impugned award. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the insurer – Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount including interest before the tribunal as per its direction within a period of two months from today, where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of claimant – Appellants on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned award. 13. The copy of insurance policy as produced in course of hearing is kept on record. 14. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Judge M.K.Panda ( B.P. Routray) Page 4 of 4