The package policy’s employee coverage and paid premium covered the deceased cleaner.

On 17 January 2010, a van insured with the appellant collided with a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus while negotiating a curve. The van’s cleaner, K. Vinothkumar, died in the accident.

His parents sought compensation, and the Tribunal found the van driver negligent and awarded ₹7,60,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, contending that the policy did not cover the cleaner because no separate premium had been paid for him.

1. Whether the Tribunal was right to fix negligence on the driver of the insured van

2. Whether the insurer was liable to indemnify the insured for the cleaner’s death, having regard to the terms of the policy

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court’s substantive determination of insurance liability turned on the terms of the policy: where a policy covers the vehicle’s employees and the requisite premium has been paid for that coverage, an employee falling within that coverage is insured.

The judgment cites no precedent or separate statutory provision governing the scope of the cleaner’s coverage; it applies the policy terms and evidence on record.

On negligence, the Court accepted the Tribunal’s reliance on RW2, the bus conductor and eyewitness, whose evidence that the van was travelling at excessive speed while negotiating the curve was corroborated by the FIR and was not rebutted by contrary evidence.

On coverage, the Court found that Ex.P4 was a package policy covering the vehicle’s employees, specified coverage for seven employees, and recorded payment of an additional/special premium of ₹175. It therefore rejected the insurer’s contention that the cleaner was not covered for want of a separate premium.

It directed the insurer to deposit the award amount, accrued interest, and costs within six weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment; the claimants may withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment.

No costs were ordered in the appeal, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.