IMT-40 coverage extends to labourers, requiring the insurer to satisfy the award while preserving recovery rights for unlicensed driving.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajpipla, directed the insurer to pay compensation and recover the amount from the vehicle’s owner, finding breaches concerning the driver’s licence and policy coverage

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally challenging the pay-and-recover direction

The policy schedule recorded a premium of Rs. 150 for a paid driver, conductor and cleaner under IMT-40

The claimant’s case was that the deceased was travelling as a labourer

Whether the policy covered the deceased, who was travelling as a labourer, so as to require the insurer to satisfy the compensation award

Whether the Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction should be disturbed in light of the finding that the driver lacked a valid and effective driving licence

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal

The Court considered the pay-and-recover principle and the Supreme Court decisions cited before the Tribunal: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager v. Sujata Arora & Ors., 2013 A.C. 749 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sureshchandra Aggarwal, 2009 (3) TAC 586 (SC); and Shamanna & Anr. v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 ACJ 2163

The Court treated the policy’s IMT-40 premium for a paid driver, conductor and cleaner as covering the relevant risk of a person travelling as a labourer or cleaner

It did not disturb the Tribunal’s finding of a licence breach and upheld payment to the claimants with recovery from the vehicle owner

The policy schedule showed that an additional premium had been paid for the risk of a paid driver, conductor and cleaner. The Court considered the deceased’s status as a labourer comparable to that of a cleaner and concluded that the policy covered the risk, so the insurer could not avoid satisfying the award on that ground

Although the Court noted that the record contained no evidence of the licence breach apart from the insurer’s officer’s report, the claimants had not challenged the Tribunal’s finding that the driver lacked a valid and effective licence. The Court therefore left that finding undisturbed and found no basis to interfere with the pay-and-recover direction

Any interim relief was vacated. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the deposited amount to the claimants after identification and verification, deducting any unpaid court fees in accordance with law