Back
2007(4) Kar. L.J. 224 (DB)
H.L DATTU AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BANGALORE -Appellant
versus
D. LAXMAN AND OTHERS -Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2971 of 2002 connected with Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 2974, 2977, 2978 and 2979 of 2002 (WC).
Decided on 8th November, 2006
CASES REFERRED: ILR 1996 KAR 2157; ILR 2001 KAR 2037; AIR 2005 SC 3428; 2004 ACJ 1881; 2006 ACJ 1285;2001 ACJ 18;1999 ACJ 231;ILR 1992 KAR 1335;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -Section 2(28) -Scope of -It covers two types of vehicles -(i) Motor vehicles and, (ii) Vehicles -Motor vehicle means all vehicles propelled by any power other than muscular power - Vehicle includes bicycles, tricycles and auto-motor car and every wheeled vehicle that is used or capable of being used on a public street. [H.L. Dattu and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.]: The meaning of the expression a motor vehicle or a vehicle . Firstly, it means, a mechanically propelled vechicle. Secondly, it must be adapted for use upon roads. The actual use for a particular purpose is no criteria to decide whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Thirdly, the propulsion for the vehicle may be transmitted either from external or internal source. The legislature thereafter designatedly used the expression "and includes" to include within the meaning of the expression "Motor Vehicles or Vehicles" chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer. The word includes is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, these words or phrases require to be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural meaning but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. By using the expression includes , the legislature intends to include a chassis and a trailer within the expression of a motor vehicle or a vehicle . Again under Section 2(28) of the Act, there are certain exclusions i.e., vehicles run upon a fixed rails or vehicles of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in an enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic centimenters. Section 2(28) of the Act, intends to include certain things, which may not fall within the meaning of a motor vehicle or a vehicle and excludes something, which may fall within the definition of a motor vehicle or a vehicle for the purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Cases Referred: ILR 1996 KAR 2157; ILR 2001 KAR 2037; AIR 2005 SC 3428; 2004 ACJ 1881; 2006 ACJ 1285;2001 ACJ 18;1999 ACJ 231;ILR 1992 KAR 1335;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -Section 146 (1) -Imperatives under - Use of motor vehicle -Imperatives under -Exemption. [H.L. Dattu and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.]: Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Act, envisages that no person except a passenger shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place. The Word use is used as in contradiction to the word "drive". The word use in the context it is used as equivalent to have the use of a motor vehicle or vehicle in a public place. The other part of the Section makes it imperative that an insurance policy must remain in force, with regard to a motor vehicle before it can be used or allowed to be used in a public place by anybody except as a passenger. Exemption from these imperative provisions is however granted only to those Central Government owned or State Government owned vehicles, which are used for administrative and allied purposes but not used for commercial purpose. A conditional exemption may be extended to vehicles owned by the Central Government or a State Government or by a local authority or by a State Transport undertaking and used for commercial purposes, provided that when such authority has established and maintained a fund for meeting liabilities arising out of the use of such vehicles.
CASES REFERRED: ILR 1996 KAR 2157;ILR 2001 KAR 2037; AIR 2005 SC 3428; 2004 ACJ 1881; 2006 ACJ 1285;2001 ACJ 18;1999 ACJ 231;ILR 1992 KAR 1335;
Words and Phrases -Motor Vehicle or Vehicle -Means all vehicles propelled by any power other than muscular power - Vehicle includes bicycles, tricycles and auto-motor car and every wheeled vehicle that is used or capable of being used on a public street.
CASES REFERRED: ILR 1996 KAR 2157;ILR 2001 KAR 2037; AIR 2005 SC 3428; 2004 ACJ 1881; 2006 ACJ 1285;2001 ACJ 18;1999 ACJ 231;ILR 1992 KAR 1335;
Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923- Section 30 -Compensation -Tractor-trailer -Tractor insured -Trailer not -Coolies carried in trailer-Not entitled to claim compensation from insurer -Commissioner held that, eventhough trailer was not insured, persons travelling in trailer are entitled to compensation as against insurer -Held, Commissioner was not justified. [H.L. Dattu and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.]: Section 2(28) of the Act defines the meaning of the expression a motor vehicle or a vehicle to mean a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon the roads. The propulsion could be either external or internal. If the legislature had stopped only with that, then it would have been difficult for the Insurance Company to plead that the trailer is also a vehicle and therefore, requires to be insured to claim compensation. But, as we have already noticed ealier, the legislature designedly has included both the chassis and the trailer to fall within the meaning of the expression a motor vehicle or a vehicle by specifically using the expression and includes . Section 146 of the Act obligates the owners of a vehicle to insure their vehicles against third party risks. If such insurance is there for the vehicle, then only, if the vehicle meets with an accident, compensation could be claimed either by the persons insured or by the persons, who have injured or expired. Therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in coming to a conclusion, that merely because the tractor was insured and though the trailer was not insured, even then, if the tractor meets with an accident along with the trailer, the coolies travelling in the trailer can claim compensation and compensation requires to be paid.
CASES REFERRED: ILR 1996 KAR 2157; ILR 2001 KAR 2037; AIR 2005 SC 3428; 2004 ACJ 1881; 2006 ACJ 1285;2001 ACJ 18;1999 ACJ 231;ILR 1992 KAR 1335;
JUDGMENT
Since a common question of law is involved in all these appeals, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. At the outset, we intend to notice that these appeals are posted before us in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15-7-2004. The learned Single Judge, while referring the matter for consideration and decision of this Court has stated, that, since an important question of law is involved in these appeals, the matter requires to be considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court.
2. The appellant in these appeals is common. The respondents are different. The appellant is an Insurance Company. The respondents are the wife and children of one late Sri Mookappa in W.C. No.4 71 of 1999, injured Sri Mallikarjuna in W.C. No. 343 of 1999, Sri Hanumanthappa in W.C. No. 344 of 1999, Sri Siddaiah in W.C. No. 345 of 1999 and Sri Sanna Appaiah in W.C. No. 346 of 1999.
3. The brief facts are:
The date of accident was 5-2-1999. The vehicle that was involved in the accident was a tractor bearing Registration No. KA-35 M-851 and a trailer bearing Registration No. MYY 7100. The deceased and the injured persons were the employees of one Sri D. Laxman, who is the owner of the tractor-trailer. It is the tractor alone, which was insured with the appellant and the trailer was not insured.
4. The wife and children of late Sri Mookappa, the injured persons Mallikarjuna, Hanumanthappa, Siddaiah, Sanna Appaiah, had filed claim petitions before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary District, Bellary. After registering the claims, the Commissioner had issued notice to the owner of the tractor-trailer and the Insurance Company. The owner had not disputed with regard to the employment of the coolies, who were travelling in the trailer, but had denied his liability to pay any compensation, since the tractor had been insured with the Insurance Company.
5. The Insurance Company, apart from others, had taken up the plea before the Commissioner that it is only the tractor, which was insured and the trailer was not insured and therefore, the claim made by the wife and children of the deceased and the injured persons in the accident requires to be rejected. The Commissioner, after recording the evidence of the parties, has come to the conclusion that since the tractor was registered, the appendage to the tractor, namely, the trailer in which the deceased and injured persons were travelling are entitled for compensation and accordingly, has quantified the compensation payable by the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Commissioner, the appellant is before us in these appeals.
6. Sri Krishna Swamy, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit, that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the tractor and the trailer both requires to be insured and in the present case, since the trailer was not insured and the coolies of the owner, namely, Sri D. Laxman, who were travelling in the trailer are not entitled for payment of compensation by the Insurance Company. In support of that contention, the learned Counsel relies on the view expressed by the learned Judges of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v N. Chandrashekara and Others and National Insurance Company Limited v Thirakappa Ramappa Itagi and Another.
7. Per contra, Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has taken us through the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and then would contend, that though the trailer is not insured, that in view of Sections 146 and 147 of the Act, the compensation requires to be paid by the Insurance Company, since the tractor was insured. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Natwar Parikh and Company Limited v State of Karnataka, Gunti Devaiah v Vaka Ped
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
