Additional premium covering a paid driver makes the insurer liable despite the driver’s self-negligence.

On 20 September 2018, Vinodkumar Kanaram Kumavat was driving truck-trailer No. RJ-14-GJ-9471 near Bajwa.

After hearing an unusual noise, he stopped the vehicle and alighted to inspect it.

The vehicle allegedly began moving, and while attempting to reach the driver’s seat to stop it, he slipped and was crushed between his truck-trailer and another truck, No. RJ-14-GJ-9473, parked ahead.

He sustained fatal injuries and died during treatment.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.20,04,800 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The insurer challenged the award, contending that the accident resulted solely from the deceased’s negligence because he had left the vehicle without applying the handbrake.

The claimants contended that the insurer had accepted an additional premium of Rs.100 to cover the risk of the driver and was therefore liable notwithstanding the deceased’s self-negligence.

Whether the claimants were required to prove negligence of another person, and whether the deceased’s alleged self-negligence barred compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the insurer remained liable to satisfy the award where it had accepted an additional premium covering the risk of the paid driver, notwithstanding the driver’s self-negligence.

The Court considered the requirement of proving negligence in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as argued by the insurer.

However, it applied the Full Bench decision in Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) v. Kandla Dock Labour Board, 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243219, which held that acceptance of an additional premium indemnifies the owner for the risk of a paid driver or conductor and makes the insurer liable for death or injury to such driver or conductor irrespective of self-negligence.

The controlling principle was that contractual coverage obtained by payment of an additional premium cannot be avoided merely because the insured driver was himself negligent.

The Court noted that the insurer’s challenge was founded on the alleged absence of negligence by any person other than the deceased.

It nevertheless held that the decisive consideration was the scope of the insurance coverage.

Since the insurer had charged an additional premium of Rs.100 for covering the risk of the driver, the deceased-driver’s risk was expressly covered.

Applying Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore, the Court concluded that self-negligence did not absolve the insurer from satisfying the award.

The Tribunal’s finding was therefore consistent with the applicable insurance principle and did not warrant appellate interference.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s award of Rs.20,04,800 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, holding that the insurer was liable despite the deceased’s alleged self-negligence because an additional premium had been paid to cover the driver’s risk.

Any amount deposited with the High Court Registry was directed to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, with no order as to costs; the record and proceedings were also directed to be returned to the Tribunal.