Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - APPELLANT
Vs.
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O DYAMAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT - RESPONDENTS
M.F.A.NO.8329/2009 (MV)
Decided On : 28-06-2021
For The Appellant :SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
For The Respondent: SRI MAHESH R. UPPIN, H. ASHOK KUMAR, SRI B.M. SIDDAPPA, SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Point of Law: Motor Accident – Statutory liability - The expression "injury to any person including owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in vehicle", conclusion is irresistible that prior to aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Section 173(1) and 147 – Grievous injuries – Compensation Awarded – Challenged – Liability of insurance company - Whether Tribunal has committed an error in fastening liability on Insurance Company in coming to conclusion that deceased travelled as an agent of owner of goods as contended in appeal - Claimants was working as a Clerk-cum-Manager and further while he was travelling in lorry driver of lorry dashed against on coming lorry and he succumbed to the injuries.
Finding of the court: Section 147 prior to its amendment in 1994, insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. It is held that subsequent to 1994 amendment, legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and make it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, owner of goods or his authorized representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and owner of goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury - Court not find any merit in the appeal to come to other conclusion that Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company in respect of agent of owner of goods.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.08.2009 passed in M.V.C.No.1371/1195 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the fastening of liability on the Insurance Company.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants are the wife, parents, brother and sister of one Dyamappa who died in the accident. The claimants contended that the said Dyamappa was working as a Clerk-cum-Manager and further while he was travelling in lorry bearing registration No.KA-06/347 on 26.06.1995, the driver of the lorry dashed against the on coming lorry bearing registration No.MP-23/D-2941 and he succumbed to the injuries. The vehicle was insured with the appellant herein and the appellant had issued the policy of insurance in the name of one Syed Shafiulla with effect from 18.08.1994 to 17.08.1995. The said policy of insurance was subsequently transferred in the name of R. Akbar Ali with effect from 11.01.2005. As on the date of the accident, R. Akbar Ali was the RC owner. It is contended that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and his risk was not required to be covered and the Tribunal fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.
4. The main contention urged by the Insurance Company in this appeal through the counsel is that the policy of insurance was issued much earlier to 14.11.1994. Under the said circumstances, there existed no legal liability on the Insurance Company to pay any compensation even though the owner of the goods or his authorized representative was being carried in a goods carriage. The Tribunal was required to have noticed that there existed no material to indicate that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner of the goods. The Tribunal failed to notice the evidence adduced by the appellant and also the terms and conditions of the policy and in the absence of the insured not being made a party to the proceedings, there exists no liability on the part of the insurer to pay any compensation.
5. The learned counsel in support of his grounds urged in the appeal memo and his argument would contend that the risk of the employee of the insured is not covered and also he is not an employee. The very contention of the claimants that he was working as Clerk-cum-Manager and though the amendment was made in 2010 replacing the word ‘workman’ as ‘employee’, Section 147 does not attract to make the Insurance Company as liable.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the amendment was made on 14.11.1994 and the accident was occurred in the year 1995. The material discloses that he was an agent of the owner of the goods and covers the risk of the agent also. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223, wherein discussed with regard to amendment carried out in the year 1994 and prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment in detail discussed the said judgment and hence the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that there is a clear pleading that the deceased was bringing back the groundnut seeds from Jalagaon to M/s. Dakshyani Mill as the agent of the owner of the goods and it is not in dispute that the goods belongs to M/s. Dakshyani Mill and hence the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
7. Having heard the arguments of the respective learned counsel, the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company in coming to the conclusion that the deceased trave
