Back
High Court Of Kerala
R. BASANT,C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Alagadurai - Appellant
Versus
Immanuel Nasa Justin - Respondent
M.A.C.A. No. 526 of 2003
Decided On : 03/03/2009
Act only policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 - Entries in Part II of Schedule 1 of the W.C. Act - Interpretation of statutory provisions and legal principles
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a driver employed by the owner of a goods carriage, was carried in the vehicle in connection with his employment at the time of an accident. The claimant sought compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (W.C. Act) from the owner, driver, and insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal held that the owner and driver were liable to compensate the victims, but the insurer was absolved from liability. The appellant appealed, contending that the quantum of compensation awarded was unfair and that the insurance company was liable to pay the amounts payable under the W.C. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant was entitled to a total amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation, in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% on the entire amount from the date of the petition to the date of payment from respondents 1 and 2. The insurer was held liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,63,940 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of payment towards the said liability.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the Act only policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, and the injuries falling under any one of the Entries in Part II of Schedule 1 of the W.C. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the statutory provisions and legal principles to determine the liability of the insurer under the Act only policy, the entitlement of the appellant to compensation under the W.C. Act, and the calculation of the quantum of compensation payable.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part, directing the appellant to receive a total amount of Rs.4 lakhs along with interest and the insurer to pay an amount of Rs.2,63,940 along with interest towards the said liability. The parties were directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.
Basant, J.
(i) Does `Act only policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act) cover the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short `the W.C. Act) of the owner of a goods carriage in respect of a driver employed by him who was not engaged in driving the vehicle; but was carried in the vehicle in connection with his employment at the time of the accident?
(ii) Can injuries falling under any one of the Entries in Part II of Schedule 1 of the W.C. Act ever be reckoned as total disablement under Section 2(1) (1) and 4(1)(b) of the W.C. Act? These are the two questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
2. To the crucially relevant and vital facts first. There is no serious dispute on facts. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He was one of the two drivers employed alternatively by the owner of the vehicle to drive the vehicle. That vehicle is admittedly a goods carriage and is covered by a valid policy of insurance. On 6-7-1997, the appellant was engaged in driving the vehicle. He was to complete his schedule of work and get out of the vehicle on that day. The other driver of the vehicle was expected to come and relieve him from duty. That driver did not come for work as expected. The owner of the vehicle wanted the appellant to go with the vehicle and fetch the other driver. The appellant drove the vehicle to the place where the other driver was expected to be available. He was traced. He was asked to get into the vehicle. The vehicle was driven back to the owner. On that lap of journey, the appellant continued to be carried in the vehicle. But the other driver was actually driving the vehicle. While the other driver was driving the vehicle, on account of rashness and negligence of such driver, the vehicle overturned. The appellant as well as some others who were traveling in the vehicle suffered injuries. Some of them succumbed to the injuries. All those who suffered injuries claimed compensation. The driver and the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer were arrayed as respondents. It is the contention of the appellant that while he was being carried in the goods vehicle belonging to the owner of the vehicle in connection with his employment as driver of the vehicle (though he was not actually engaged in driving at the relevant time) the vehicle had met with an accident because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. He hence claimed that he is entitled to get compensation. He asserted that not only the driver and owner of the vehicle but the insurer is also liable to compensate him.
3. The application for compensation was resisted. The 1st respondent—the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent entered appearance. The 4th respondent—the real insurer (the 3rd respondent was originally shown as the insurer and he was later deleted from the array of parties) admitted insurance coverage of the vehicle; but contended that the policy does not cover the liability in so far as the appellant is concerned as he was only a gratuitous traveler in the goods carriage. In this appeal the real insurer alone is arrayed as the 3rd respondent.
4. The claim of the appellant was considered along with the claim for compensation raised by others who had suffered injuries. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, held that the owner and driver of the vehicle are liable to compensate the victims as the accident had taken place on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle. But it was held that liability in respect of the passengers in the goods vehicle (including the appellant) is not covered under the policy of insurance. Accordingly the insurer—the 3rd respondent herein, was absolved from liability, whereas respondents 1 and 2 were directed to compensate the victim for the loss suffered by him. Even though the appellant had claimed a total amount of Rs. 4,82,000 as compensation, the Tribun
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
