Insurers remain liable for loading and unloading workers covered by an IMT 39 endorsement.

On 12 September 2012, two deceased labourers were travelling in a goods truck after loading powder bags, with the intention of unloading them at their destination.

The truck overturned after its driver allegedly lost control, and both labourers later died.

Their dependants brought claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,40,000 and Rs. 7,02,000 in the respective claim petitions, with interest at 7% per annum.

The insurer appealed, contending that the deceased were unauthorised gratuitous passengers; the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the insurer could avoid liability on the ground that the deceased were unauthorised or gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s awards required enhancement to reflect just and fair compensation.

Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide for claims and awards of just compensation, while Section 173 provides for appeals from Tribunal awards.

Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a respondent to file cross-objections in an appeal.

The Court applied the compensation principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, in assessing future prospects and conventional heads of compensation.

It also relied on V. Pathmavathi v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 158, for the principle that compensation must be fair and reasonable, while recognising that it is an estimate and cannot truly replace the loss suffered.

The policy’s IMT 39 endorsement covered legal liability for persons employed in connection with loading or unloading a goods vehicle, subject to its terms and limits.

The insurer produced no evidence establishing that the deceased were gratuitous or unauthorised passengers.

The FIR, which remained unchallenged, stated that they were labourers travelling to unload powder bags; the policy also contained an IMT 39 endorsement covering persons employed in loading or unloading.

The Court therefore rejected the insurer’s coverage defence.

On compensation, it found the Tribunal’s calculations inconsistent with the applicable standardised approach and recalculated the awards using income, future prospects, personal-expense deductions, multipliers, and conventional heads.

It assessed total compensation at Rs. 14,87,810 in one claim and Rs. 12,07,650 in the other.

It awarded additional compensation of Rs. 5,47,810 and Rs. 5,05,650, respectively, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amounts within eight weeks.

The judgment states that the enhancement carries interest at 7% per annum from the claim-petition date; the operative deposit direction specifies 7.5% per annum.

The remaining Tribunal directions were maintained, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts after verification and in accordance with due procedure.