SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 298

A.S.CHANDURKAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
BUDHA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
H.N. Verma, Adv., K.V. Kotwal, Adv., N.G. Solao, Adv., H. Prabhu, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2?

Key Points: - The Insurance Company and owner liable to pay compensation where a workman is injured/deceased during loading sand with a tractor-trolley, even if the vehicle was stationary at the time (!) (!) - Use of the motor vehicle extends to stationary use under the Motor Vehicles Act, affecting insurance liability (proviso to Section 147 and related case law) (!) (!) - If the accident is connected to the work being performed (loading sand), insurer may be liable under Employees' Compensation Act Sections 3 and 4; enhancement of compensation is not permissible without cross-objection (!) (!) (!) - Interest under Section 4A begins from the date of the accident; the amount and responsibility of penalty allocated between owner and insurer (!) (!) - The appellate court upheld the claimants’ entitlement to compensation and directed joint and several liability; no cross-objection by claimants on enhanced compensation (!) (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?


JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) has been heard on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the claimants are entitled to grant of compensation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, in view of the fact that the insurance policy covered the risk of use of the trailer and trolley and the accident occurred when the said vehicle was not in use?

(2) If it is found that the appellant is liable to satisfy the liability, whether the amount of compensation as awarded is just and proper?

2. The facts in brief are that it is the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - original claimants that their son Govinda was engaged in doing labour work. On 5-5-2005 Govinda had gone along with a tractor - trolley which was owned by respondent No.3 herein and insured with the appellant for the purposes of bringing sand in the trolley. The vehicle was taken near a stream where said Govinda along with other labourers started loading sand from the bank of the stream. In that process part of the bank collapsed and Govinda was buried under the debris. After making efforts Govinda w






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top