Insurance Company Liable for Paid Driver's Death Regardless of Self-Negligence Under IMT 28 Endorsement.

The respondents-claimants filed MACP No. 295 of 2014 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following the death of Jatinbhai Patel in a vehicular accident on 09.02.2014

The deceased was driving a Maruti car (GJ-23-AF-4869) when a Mahindra vehicle (MH-48-A-9317) crossed the road divider and collided with him

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,25,200/- in compensation, apportioning negligence in a 60:40 ratio between the Mahindra and Maruti drivers respectively

The appellant (insurer of the Maruti car) challenged the award, contending that the deceased was not a "third party" but stepped into the shoes of the owner, and was not a bona fide employee/driver of the owner

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in apportioning 40% negligence to the driver of the Maruti car coached by the nature of the head-on collision

2. Whether the deceased, being a paid driver but also holding other employment, is covered under the insurance policy as a "third party" or employee under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act

The Court applied Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs the statutory requirements of insurance policies and the coverage of risk for paid drivers

Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore v. Kandla Dock Labour Board (2021 (4) GLH 77): establishes that when an owner pays an additional premium (such as under IMT 28) to cover a paid driver, the insurance company's liability is extended and it cannot avoid indemnity by raising issues of self-negligence or the driver's status, provided the additional premium was accepted

The Court examined the Tribunal’s findings regarding negligence and found the 60:40 apportionment supported by appropriate reasoning based on the accident's circumstances

Regarding the deceased's status, the Court noted the testimony of the Maruti car owner (Opponent No. 2), who confirmed at Exh. 44 that although the deceased had separate factory employment, he was specifically engaged as a private driver for a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- paid in cash

Applying the Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore principle, the Court reasoned that since the deceased was established as a paid driver and the policy covered such legal liability, the insurer could not bypass its contractual and statutory obligation

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 06.02.2017

The connected Civil Application for substitute service was disposed of as not pressed due to the claimants' migration