RANCHI, India, Jan. 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 5:

1. The owner of the vehicle is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in Claim Case No. 56 of 2020, whereby and whereunder compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been awarded in favour of the claimants fixing liability to pay the amount on the owner of the vehicle.

2. The finding of facts with regard to the accidental death of Jawed Ansari in motor vehicle accident while he was employed as helper in lorry no. HR-47B-5853 is not under challenge.

3. The main ground for this appeal is that the vehicle was under insurance cover of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by policy of insurance (Ext.X) marked for identification by the learned Tribunal.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that as per the Insurance policy it was a package policy which covers the driver and cleaner of the vehicle.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal has committed an error of record while stating at page no. 12 of the impugned award that the premium of Rs. 150/- was paid for covering insurance of driver and no amount was paid for helper/cleaner.

6. A bare perusal of Ext. X will demonstrate that it was a package policy and covered the cleaner of the vehicle. Under Section 7 of Indian Motor Tariff Endorsement (IMT-28), the package policy covers legal liability to pay driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle.

7. The main issue before this Court in the instant appeal is whether the deceased, who was the cleaner working in the said offending Lorry/truck, was under the insurance cover as per the policy of the insurance. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Indian Motor Tariff Endorsement (IMT-28) which specifically provides that the legal liability to pay driver and/or conductor and /or cleaner employed in connection of operation of insured vehicle is covered, in consideration of an additional premium of Rs.25/-, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy.

8. From perusal of the policy of insurance, it appears that Rs.150/- was paid as premium. In view of the IMT-28 mere omission to mention the cleaner in the policy will not disentitle the claimants, as premium had already been paid covering the risk of the cleaner.

9. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, whereby and whereunder, the Insurance Company has been exempted from the liability to pay compensation is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside.

This Misc. Appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award and pay the compensation amount to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of the order.

Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of appeal be returned to the appellant.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.