Accident claim - M.V. ACT - Goods vehicle - accident - Gumasthe died - Gumasthe also covered with in the clause "engaged in operation" - Expression in policy “Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17”. - Tribunal rightly awarded compensation - High court misread it and interpreted narrowly only to loading and unloading of motor vehicle - Gumasthe comes under the persons employed in connection with operation - Apex court set aside the orders of high court and restored the orders of Tribunal =
The Tribunal
allowed their claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, the
appellant and also from respondent-Insurance Company as they were held
responsible jointly and severally. The claim was allowed with 6% interest
from the date of claim petition till its realization with costs fixed at
Rs.200/-.
3. In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High Court by the
order under Appeal dated 17.10.2005 interfered with the Award made against
the Insurer in respect of death of Hanumanth and held that the Award was
bad in law because the deceased was in a clerical cadre working as a Gumasthe accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery and as such he could not be covered by the clause under which premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. Against this order passed
in MFA No.2451 of 2002, the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle has
preferred this appeal.=
whether the clause IMT 17
for which premium was paid to the insurer in respect of the concerned lorry
will cover the deceased Hamumanth or not.
For deciding the above issue, one is simply required to go through
the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose copy has been made
available to us. The clause reads thus:
“Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the
operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17”.
6. The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding that the
insurer is not liable in respect of death of Hanumanth. The clause -
“persons employed in connection with the operation” is clearly over and
above the coverage provided by the policy to “persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle”. As Gumasthe, the
deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery
of goods. This has been accepted by the High Court. Obviously, as Gumasthe
the deceased would be covered by the expression “persons employed in
connection with operation of motor vehicle” The operation of the aforesaid
clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.
In view of the aforesaid error committed by the High Court, the order
under appeal is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. As a
result, the respondent-Insurance Company will be bound by the Award made by
the Tribunal for paying compensation to the claimants for the death of
Hanumath as per orders of the Tribunal. The dues of compensation along with
due interest should be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company within
eight weeks with the Tribunal which will permit the claimants to withdraw
the amount as per order of the Tribunal.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
2014 ( January part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41181
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5901 OF 2008
HANUMANAGOUDA ... APPELLANT
VS.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.
2. Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a lorry, two persons died
and others received injuries.
All the thirteen claim petitions were
decided by a common judgment dated 21.01.2002 by the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `The Tribunal’)
presided by the Principal District Judge at Raichur (Karnataka).
This
appeal relates only to claim filed by dependents and legal representatives
of deceased Hanumanth which included his widow Smt. Mariyamma and three
minor children, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal.
The Tribunal
allowed their claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, the
appellant and also from respondent-Insurance Company as they were held
responsible jointly and severally. The claim was allowed with 6% interest
from the date of claim petition till its realization with costs fixed at
Rs.200/-.
3. In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High Court by the
order under Appeal dated 17.10.2005 interfered with the Award made against
the Insurer in respect of death of Hanumanth and held that the Award was
bad in law because the deceased was in a clerical cadre working as a Gumasthe accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery and as such he could not be covered by the clause under which premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. Against this order passed
in MFA No.2451 of 2002, the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle has
preferred this appeal.
4. The only issue requiring determination is whether the clause IMT 17
for which premium was paid to the insurer in respect of the concerned lorry
will cover the deceased Hamumanth or not.
5. For deciding the above issue, one is simply required to go through
the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose copy has been made
available to us. The clause reads thus:
“Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the
operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17”.
6. The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding that the
insurer is not liable in respect of death of Hanumanth. The clause -
“persons employed in connection with the operation” is clearly over and
above the coverage provided by the policy to “persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle”. As Gumasthe, the
deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery
of goods. This has been accepted by the High Court. Obviously, as Gumasthe
the deceased would be covered by the expression “persons employed in
connection with operation of motor vehicle” The operation of the aforesaid
clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.
7. In view of the aforesaid error committed by the High Court, the order
under appeal is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. As a
result, the respondent-Insurance Company will be bound by the Award made by
the Tribunal for paying compensation to the claimants for the death of
Hanumath as per orders of the Tribunal. The dues of compensation along with
due interest should be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company within
eight weeks with the Tribunal which will permit the claimants to withdraw
the amount as per order of the Tribunal.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
……………………………………………C.J.I.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………………J.
(SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
New Delhi,
January 28, 2014.
The Tribunal
allowed their claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, the
appellant and also from respondent-Insurance Company as they were held
responsible jointly and severally. The claim was allowed with 6% interest
from the date of claim petition till its realization with costs fixed at
Rs.200/-.
3. In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High Court by the
order under Appeal dated 17.10.2005 interfered with the Award made against
the Insurer in respect of death of Hanumanth and held that the Award was
bad in law because the deceased was in a clerical cadre working as a Gumasthe accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery and as such he could not be covered by the clause under which premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. Against this order passed
in MFA No.2451 of 2002, the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle has
preferred this appeal.=
whether the clause IMT 17
for which premium was paid to the insurer in respect of the concerned lorry
will cover the deceased Hamumanth or not.
For deciding the above issue, one is simply required to go through
the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose copy has been made
available to us. The clause reads thus:
“Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the
operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17”.
6. The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding that the
insurer is not liable in respect of death of Hanumanth. The clause -
“persons employed in connection with the operation” is clearly over and
above the coverage provided by the policy to “persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle”. As Gumasthe, the
deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery
of goods. This has been accepted by the High Court. Obviously, as Gumasthe
the deceased would be covered by the expression “persons employed in
connection with operation of motor vehicle” The operation of the aforesaid
clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.
In view of the aforesaid error committed by the High Court, the order
under appeal is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. As a
result, the respondent-Insurance Company will be bound by the Award made by
the Tribunal for paying compensation to the claimants for the death of
Hanumath as per orders of the Tribunal. The dues of compensation along with
due interest should be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company within
eight weeks with the Tribunal which will permit the claimants to withdraw
the amount as per order of the Tribunal.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
2014 ( January part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41181
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5901 OF 2008
HANUMANAGOUDA ... APPELLANT
VS.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.
2. Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a lorry, two persons died
and others received injuries.
All the thirteen claim petitions were
decided by a common judgment dated 21.01.2002 by the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `The Tribunal’)
presided by the Principal District Judge at Raichur (Karnataka).
This
appeal relates only to claim filed by dependents and legal representatives
of deceased Hanumanth which included his widow Smt. Mariyamma and three
minor children, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal.
The Tribunal
allowed their claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, the
appellant and also from respondent-Insurance Company as they were held
responsible jointly and severally. The claim was allowed with 6% interest
from the date of claim petition till its realization with costs fixed at
Rs.200/-.
3. In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High Court by the
order under Appeal dated 17.10.2005 interfered with the Award made against
the Insurer in respect of death of Hanumanth and held that the Award was
bad in law because the deceased was in a clerical cadre working as a Gumasthe accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery and as such he could not be covered by the clause under which premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. Against this order passed
in MFA No.2451 of 2002, the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle has
preferred this appeal.
4. The only issue requiring determination is whether the clause IMT 17
for which premium was paid to the insurer in respect of the concerned lorry
will cover the deceased Hamumanth or not.
5. For deciding the above issue, one is simply required to go through
the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose copy has been made
available to us. The clause reads thus:
“Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the
operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17”.
6. The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding that the
insurer is not liable in respect of death of Hanumanth. The clause -
“persons employed in connection with the operation” is clearly over and
above the coverage provided by the policy to “persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle”. As Gumasthe, the
deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery
of goods. This has been accepted by the High Court. Obviously, as Gumasthe
the deceased would be covered by the expression “persons employed in
connection with operation of motor vehicle” The operation of the aforesaid
clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in
connection with loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.
7. In view of the aforesaid error committed by the High Court, the order
under appeal is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. As a
result, the respondent-Insurance Company will be bound by the Award made by
the Tribunal for paying compensation to the claimants for the death of
Hanumath as per orders of the Tribunal. The dues of compensation along with
due interest should be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company within
eight weeks with the Tribunal which will permit the claimants to withdraw
the amount as per order of the Tribunal.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
……………………………………………C.J.I.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………………J.
(SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
New Delhi,
January 28, 2014.
