IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1547 of 2008(C) ------------------------------- OPMV.2502/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SALEEM.S, PUNNAVELITHADATHIL, VETTIMUKAL.P.O, ETTUMANOOR. 2. RENY PETER, PULINIKUMKALAYIL, KOTHANALLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 3. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHITTATTUKUZHIYIL, MANJOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1547 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)2502/04. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.94,500/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The insurance company has challenged the award of the Tribunal regarding its liability. It is contended that the petitioner is not covered. The Tribunal held that at the time of the accident the petitioner was not discharging duties as porter of the bus and further it held that he was a third party and directed to pay compensation. It is not a correct approach and an employee of the insured cannot be a third party whether he is inside the bus or outside the bus in which he is working. Even otherwise in the case of passengers the Apex Court as well as this Court has held that a person will continue to be a passenger even when he puts his leg outside M.A.C.A. NO. 1547 OF 2008 -:2:- for the purpose of alighting. The only difference made is that suppose during the process of driving a person is thrown out without his knowledge he may lose the character of a passenger in a bus. Therefore the approach of the Tribunal in arriving at a decision is not proper. 2. But let me consider about the factum whether this person is entitled to insurance coverage under the policy. By a reading of S.147 of the M.V.Act the conductor or a driver does not really require any extra premium for coverage for the reason that it is a statutory obligation. Learned counsel for the parties had brought to my notice the book on India Motor Tariff and had specifically referred to page 50 wherein under clause 10(a) liability to any paid driver or cleaner or conductor or persons employed in loading/unloading may be covered on payment of additional premium at the rate of Rs.25/- per employee etc. On clause 9 N.B.(2) there is an endorsement that if the coverage is to exclude the insured's employee (outside the purview of the W.C. Act) the endorsement IMT 38 is to be used. A perusal of the policy M.A.C.A. NO. 1547 OF 2008 -:3:- would show that the endorsement is there under IMT 38. so the coverage is outside the scope of the W.C. Act which means the total coverage and therefore in the light of the fact that the employees of the insured are covered with IMT endorsement 38 it has to be held that those persons are covered by the policy and therefore they are entitled to get full compensation. So, though on a different reason, it has to be held that by virtue of the terms and conditions and payment of premium, the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured and therefore the direction of the claims Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the amount does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-