Insurer is liable for injured employee-labourer where policy covers legal liability despite passenger plying restrictions.

On January 18, 2007, the claimant (Respondent No. 1), aged 18, was traveling as a laborer in a truck (C.G./18/ZC/0351) to a sand quarry.

The vehicle overturned due to the driver's negligence, causing the claimant a fractured right femur and subsequent permanent disability.

The claimant sought Rs. 5,00,000/- in compensation.

The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,840/- with 9% interest, holding the insurer liable.

The Insurance Company appealed, alleging the vehicle lacked a valid permit and the claimant was a "gratuitous passenger."

The claimant filed a cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation.

1. Whether the insurance company is exempt from liability on the grounds that the offending vehicle lacked a valid permit at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the claimant was a "gratuitous passenger," thereby excluding him from the scope of the insurance policy.

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable or required enhancement based on the permanent disability and medical expenses.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards.

It relied on the principle that the burden of proving a breach of policy conditions (such as lack of permit) lies strictly with the insurer, requiring specific pleadings and evidence.

Additionally, it applied the doctrine that where an additional premium is paid to cover "legal liability for employees" and the seating capacity accommodates such persons, a laborer traveling for work is not a "gratuitous passenger" but a covered employee.

For quantum, the Court applied the multiplier method and assessed "just compensation" for non-pecuniary losses like pain and suffering.

The Court found that the insurer failed to specifically plead the lack of a permit in its written statement and provided no evidence to support this claim; thus, the defense was rejected.

Regarding the status of the passenger, the Court noted that the insurance policy (Ex.D.1) showed a seating capacity of "4" and that an additional premium of Rs. 100/- was charged for employee liability.

Since the claimant was traveling for labor work under the vehicle owner's employment, he was held to be a covered risk and not a gratuitous passenger.

On quantum, the Court upheld the 12% permanent disability assessment and the multiplier of 18.

However, it found the Tribunal's awards for medical treatment, pain, suffering, and special diet were "on the lower side" and adjusted them to reflect the intensity of a femur fracture and a one-month hospitalization.

It held that the insurer is liable as no policy breach was proven.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 60,840/- to Rs. 1,06,840/- (an addition of Rs. 46,000/-) to cover loss of income for three months, mental agony, and special diet.

The appellant insurer was directed to pay the enhanced amount with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition.