Additional premium for a paid driver covers injuries sustained during ancillary unloading duties.

On 20 January 2019, the deceased, a truck driver, was injured when a bundle of paddy grass fell on him while he was untying a rope during unloading.

He died during treatment on 29 January 2019.

His dependants claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The vehicle owner admitted the employment relationship and stated that the deceased received a monthly salary of ₹9,000, including allowances.

The insurer disputed liability, arguing that the deceased was unloading cargo rather than driving and that the claim should have been brought before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

The Tribunal awarded ₹16,73,018 with interest at 9% per annum.

The insurer appealed, and the claimants filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the insurer was liable under the policy for the death of a paid driver who was injured while unloading cargo, rather than driving the truck.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation required enhancement, including under the conventional heads.

Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide for a compensation claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an appeal against its award, respectively; Order XLI Rule 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a respondent to file a cross-objection.

The Court relied on Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) v. Kandla Dock Labour Board, 2022 (1) GLR 440, and the Larger Bench decision reported at 2021 (4) GLH 77 for the principle that, where an insurer accepts an additional premium to cover a paid driver, it must indemnify the owner for the driver’s death or injury within the covered risk.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are subject to enhancement at 10% every three years; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, was relied upon for consortium payable to eligible dependants.

The policy showed that an additional premium had been paid to cover the paid driver, and the record established that the deceased was employed as the truck’s driver.

The Court held that unloading-related activity did not remove him from that status: tasks ancillary to the vehicle’s operation, including loading or unloading, formed part of the driver’s operational duties.

The insurer therefore remained liable to indemnify the owner.

On quantum, the Court did not disturb the Tribunal’s acceptance of ₹9,000 as monthly income in the absence of documentary evidence, but revised the conventional-head amounts by applying the cited authorities.

It assessed total compensation at ₹16,97,908, an increase of ₹24,890 over the Tribunal’s award.

The claimants were awarded an additional ₹24,890, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount after verification and to deduct any unpaid court fees.