2025:UHC:10112 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 323 of 2022 14th November, 2025 Sunita Devi and Others ………….Appellants Versus Bhuvnesh Kumar Kukreti and Another …....Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 324 of 2022 Pushpa Devi and Others ………….Appellants Versus Bhuvnesh Kumar Kukreti and Another …....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia along with Mr. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite sufficient service upon respondent no.1, none has put in appearance on his behalf. Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, learned counsel respondent no.2/Insurance Company. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Oral) The present appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No. 38 of 2019 Pushpa Devi & Others vs. Bhuvnesh Kumar Kukreti & Another and M.A.C.P. No. 39 of 2019 Sunita Devi & Others vs. Bhuvnesh Kumar Kukreti & Another. By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions holding that petitions under Section 166 of the Act were not maintainable in view of the conditions of the insurance policy read with IMT Endorsement No. 40. 2025:UHC:10112 2 2. Since both appeals raise identical questions of fact and law arising out of the same accident, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants, being legal heirs of deceased Harendra Singh Gusain (Conductor) and deceased Ramesh Chandra Baluni (Driver) of Truck No. UK-12-7044, filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act alleging that on 04.07.2019, while returning to Kotdwar after delivery of goods, the truck suffered mechanical failure, went out of control and fell into a deep gorge, resulting in the death of both occupants. The claimants asserted that the deceased were earning ₹14,500/- and ₹18,000/- per month respectively, and claimed compensation of ₹46,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, filed written statement asserting that the vehicle was being driven with valid documents and no negligence was attributable to him; further, the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2. The Insurance Company (respondent No.2) denied employment and income of the deceased, alleged invalid driving licence and invalid fitness/registration of the vehicle, and further pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving as also want of timely repair of the vehicle; thus, it denied its liability. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: (i) Whether on date 04.07.2019, deceased Harendra Singh Gusain and deceased Ramesh Chandra Baluni were Conductor and Driver of the Truck UK 12-7044, 2025:UHC:10112 3 which was returning to Kotdwar after delivering the goods and due to mechanical failure met an accident on Dhaundhiyal-Sendhikhal Motor Road, in which the truck fell down in deep gorge resulting into death of Harendra Singh Gusain and Ramesh Chandra Baluni, who were Conductor and Driver, respectively of the said Truck? (ii) Whether, on the date of truck accident, the truck UK-12-7044 was being driver with valid driving license? (iii) Whether, on the date of truck accident, the truck UK-12-7044 was being driven with valid papers? (iv) Whether claimants are entitled to any compensation, if yes, then how much compensation and from whom? 6. The claimants filed documentary evidence including the accident information, G.D. entry, post- mortem reports, panchnama, RTI information from Labour Commissioner and ARTO, vehicle registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, driving licence, insurance policy, and identity proofs etc. 7. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the petitions holding that the policy was a package policy wherein ₹100/- had been paid towards coverage of a paid driver/conductor/cleaner, which is governed by IMT Endorsement No. 40. Relying on the said endorsement, the Tribunal held that if the deceased were paid employees of the vehicle owner, their legal heirs could claim compensation only under the Workmen’s 2025:UHC:10112 4 Compensation Act, 1923 and that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the statutory scheme under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act and more particularly Section 145(g) (as amended in 2019), which expressly includes the driver and co-worker of a transport vehicle within the definition of “third party”; that, since the deceased were co-workers on a transport vehicle, they were statutorily recognized as “third party”, enabling a claim under Section 166. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the owner had paid additional premium of ₹100/- for covering the risk of the paid driver and conductor, and consequently the liability of the insurer stood extended; that, once the insurer accepts the additional premium, it is bound to indemnify the insured for unlimited liability in respect of the death of driver/conductor; that, learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that, under Section 147 of the Act, statutory liability stands extended by contract of insurance and the insurer cannot avoid liability on the basis of IMT No.40. 10. He would also submit that by virtue of Section 167 of the Act, claimants have the statutory option to pursue remedy either under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance was placed on Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board & Another, III (2021) ACC 518 (FB) (Guj.), wherein it was held that upon payment of additional premium covering legal liability of paid driver, the claimants may opt to file a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurer’s liability stands 2025:UHC:10112 5 extended beyond the limits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Learned counsel therefore contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law and fact in holding the petitions not maintainable and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside with a direction for fresh adjudication. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2/Insurance Company supported the judgment and submitted that IMT Endorsement No. 40 restricts the insurer’s liability only to the extent of compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Usha Devi & Others, SLP (Civil) No. 9460 of 2022, reiterated that claims under Section 163A are to be determined strictly as per the Second Schedule without entering into negligence, and that liability lies upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer therefore contends that the petitions were rightly dismissed. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. IMT Endorsement No. 40 pertains to the insurer’s liability towards paid driver/conductor/cleaner and expressly states that, upon payment of additional premium, the insurer indemnifies the insured against legal liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or under Common Law for personal injury to a paid driver/conductor/cleaner. The said endorsement reads: “In consideration of payment of an additional premium, it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the insurer shall indemnify the insured 2025:UHC:10112 6 against his legal liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923… or at Common Law in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured…” 15. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal failed to consider the legal effect of Section 145(g) as amended, Section 147 of the Act, and the option available under Section 167 of the Act. The impugned judgment suffers from error of law and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and award dated 08.07.2022 is set aside and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh/de novo adjudication in accordance with law. 16. The learned Tribunal is requested to decide the claim petitions expeditiously, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both parties, as the matter is pending since 2019. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. ( ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 14.11.2025 Mamta