New India Assurance Company vs Chandra Devi and Others

P.D. Desai, C.J.—It is not in dispute that the Insurance Policy contained Endorsement No. IMT-16. It is also not in dispute that extra premium was charged in the sum of Rs. 16/- for Driver and Cleaner. Under the circumstances, the legal liability of the Appellant-Insurance Company will not be confined only to the extent of such liability arising under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, but will extend also to the liability arising under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 as well as at common law (See: Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Varjubhai Lallubhai Bhil and Others etc., It is, therefore, apparent that in view of this wider coverage contained in Endorsement No. IMT-16, the insurance company must reimburse the insured in respect of the entire liability arising out of the accident in question in so far as the deceased is concerned. Be it stated that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute the applicability of the decision in Varjubhai Lallu-bhai Bhil''s case, though he does not acquiesce in the correctness of the said decision. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, not open to challenge on that ground.

True it is that the deceased was described as a Conductor whereas the extra premium was paid in respect of a Cleaner. This, however, is not a matter of any consequence and it cannot defeat the applicability of Endorsement No. IMT-16. The fact that the deceased was an employee of the insured and was, at the material time, carried in the goods vehicle involved in the accident is not in dispute. The goods vehicle does not ordinarily have a Conductor. The person who assists the Driver of a goods vehicle is generally called a Cleaner. The description of the deceased as a Conductor can, therefore, be legitimately regarded as a misdescription.

For the foregoing reasons, there being no substance in this appeal, it is summarily dismissed.