Court’s Decision:
The Kerala High Court overturned the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s decision, which had exonerated the insurance company from compensating the petitioners. The court directed the insurance company to pay a total compensation of Rs. 18,04,660 to the petitioners, along with 9% interest from the claim date until realization, citing that the insurer’s policy provisions did not justify excluding liability for the spare driver involved in the accident.
Facts:
The appellants are legal heirs of Nithin, who was working as a spare driver on a lorry. The accident occurred due to the alleged negligence of the primary driver, leading the vehicle to collide with another lorry in Karnataka. Nithin sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,97,960 but placed liability only on the driver and owner of the lorry, excluding the insurance company on grounds that the insurance policy did not cover spare drivers.
Issues:
- Whether the insurance company was liable to cover a spare driver under the issued policy.
- Whether the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal was appropriate given the facts of the case.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the insurance policy covered the risk for personnel such as drivers, conductors, and cleaners, citing the additional premium paid for these categories. They contended that the deceased, being a spare driver, should qualify under this coverage. They also highlighted that under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, vehicles with a national permit must accommodate two drivers, including facilities for the spare driver.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The insurance company argued that the deceased was not covered under the policy as he was a spare driver. They claimed the policy’s provisions did not extend to him, as no additional premium was paid specifically to cover a spare driver.
Analysis of the Law:
The court referred to Section 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which mandates that national permit lorries must have two drivers, supporting the presence of a spare driver. It emphasized that the insurance contract must conform to the Motor Vehicles Act provisions and other relevant regulations, which aim to protect workers and individuals involved in vehicular accidents.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referenced previous rulings, including:
- N.K.V Bros.(P) Ltd. v. M.Karumal Ammal, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that accident victims should not be deprived of compensation due to technicalities.
- Sasikumar v. Lakshman, underscoring that insurance contracts must align with statutory protections.
- Pranay Sethi and Jagdish v. Mohan, discussing the inclusion of future prospects in compensation for self-employed individuals, thereby affecting the income calculations.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court held that additional premiums for covering driver and cleaner risks implied coverage for the spare driver, given the regulatory requirement for such personnel on national permit vehicles. The insurer’s arguments were insufficient to nullify coverage. The court found that the Tribunal’s exclusion of the insurer from liability based on the spare driver’s designation was flawed, as the policy covered the vehicle’s operational staff.
Conclusion:
The High Court modified the Tribunal’s award, setting aside its exoneration of the insurance company. It recalculated the compensation based on a higher income rate for the deceased, who was skilled in driving, applying a 40% increase for future prospects in line with Supreme Court judgments.
Implications:
This ruling reinforces that insurers cannot exclude liability for personnel mandated under vehicular laws without specific policy exclusions. It underscores the judiciary’s stance on ensuring protective interpretations of beneficial legislations, affirming the rights of accident victims and their families for rightful compensation.
