BENGALURU: The insurer is liable to pay compensation in respect of a spare driver beneath part 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if there is just one declare beneath the coverage, the Dharwad bench of the excessive court docket dominated in a current judgment.
“However, if there are two separate claims in respect of the driver and the spare driver, the insurer may not be liable to pay for both the drivers unless additional premium is paid. If the claim is in respect of only one driver, even if he is not actually driving at the time of the accident, the insurer is liable to pay under section 147 as a statutory liability,” Justice HP Sandesh noticed in his order whereas upholding the orders handed by the commissioner for workmen compensation, Haveri district.
On February 28, 2011, two orders have been handed by the commissioner for workmen compensation, awarding Rs 3,26,410 with 12% curiosity vis-a-vis the declare petition pertaining to demise of Shamiulla and Rs 3,99,345 with 12% curiosity on the declare petition pertaining to demise of Irfan, Shamiulla’s son.
Shamiulla and Irfan have been killed when the truck by which they have been travelling met with an accident on May 26, 2009. Majju alias Majjumeerpasha, the opposite son of Shamiulla, was driving the truck.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer, challenged the orders. The insurer’s competition was that the commissioner had blindly held that Shamiulla was the second driver within the car, when the claimants had failed to provide any doc to indicate the connection of employer and worker between the deceased and Nasrulla Shariff, the proprietor of the car. The claimants had additionally failed to provide the driving licence of the deceased, arguing that itself goes to indicate that the deceased was travelling as a passenger within the car on the time of the accident.
About Irfan, the insurer claimed that no doc was produced to indicate that he was working as a cleaner and the driving force of the truck hadn’t been examined within the case to show the case of the claimants.
However, Justice Sandesh, after perusing data, famous that the proprietor of the car had claimed that the deceased have been working for him. “…the owner himself made a statement before police the day after the accident that both of them were working with him. In order to rebut the same, the insurance company has not examined the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident,” the decide additional noticed whereas dismissing the attraction filed by the insurance firm.
“However, if there are two separate claims in respect of the driver and the spare driver, the insurer may not be liable to pay for both the drivers unless additional premium is paid. If the claim is in respect of only one driver, even if he is not actually driving at the time of the accident, the insurer is liable to pay under section 147 as a statutory liability,” Justice HP Sandesh noticed in his order whereas upholding the orders handed by the commissioner for workmen compensation, Haveri district.
On February 28, 2011, two orders have been handed by the commissioner for workmen compensation, awarding Rs 3,26,410 with 12% curiosity vis-a-vis the declare petition pertaining to demise of Shamiulla and Rs 3,99,345 with 12% curiosity on the declare petition pertaining to demise of Irfan, Shamiulla’s son.
Shamiulla and Irfan have been killed when the truck by which they have been travelling met with an accident on May 26, 2009. Majju alias Majjumeerpasha, the opposite son of Shamiulla, was driving the truck.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer, challenged the orders. The insurer’s competition was that the commissioner had blindly held that Shamiulla was the second driver within the car, when the claimants had failed to provide any doc to indicate the connection of employer and worker between the deceased and Nasrulla Shariff, the proprietor of the car. The claimants had additionally failed to provide the driving licence of the deceased, arguing that itself goes to indicate that the deceased was travelling as a passenger within the car on the time of the accident.
About Irfan, the insurer claimed that no doc was produced to indicate that he was working as a cleaner and the driving force of the truck hadn’t been examined within the case to show the case of the claimants.
However, Justice Sandesh, after perusing data, famous that the proprietor of the car had claimed that the deceased have been working for him. “…the owner himself made a statement before police the day after the accident that both of them were working with him. In order to rebut the same, the insurance company has not examined the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident,” the decide additional noticed whereas dismissing the attraction filed by the insurance firm.
