Loading and unloading workers are covered under clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the MV Act, as the activity is inseparably connected with the usage of a goods carriage.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act 1923, by the second respondent in E.C.C.116/2017 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode against the order dated 14.2.2020.

2. The first respondent, who was the applicant before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, was a loading and unloading worker in the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-56/6300 owned by the second respondent. On 8.10.2015, while he was employed and engaged as loading and unloading worker and while he was loading coconut tree into the tipper lorry, it fell down on the body of the first respondent and he sustained injuries in the incident. He approached the Employees Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation by filing an application under Section 22 of the above Act. The appellant, namely United India Insurance Co. Ltd., admitted the policy but disputed the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of loading and unloading worker in the tipper lorry. Rejecting the above contention, the Employees Compensation Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% from 8.10.2017 till deposit and Rs.2,55,962/- towards treatment expense.

3. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, the appellant preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law :

Whether the loading and unloading worker of the owner of the Tipper lorry comes under the coverage of the classes of employees covered under clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the M.V.Act, 1988 ?

4. Heard both sides.

5. Admittedly the first respondent was engaged by the second respondent as loading and unloading worker in his tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-56/6300. On 8.10.2015, while he was employed and engaged as loading and unloading worker and while he was loading a coconut tree into the tipper lorry, it fell down on the body of the first respondent and he sustained injuries in the incident. According to the appellant, Ext.B1 policy issued in favour of the second respondent does not cover the risk of loading and unloading worker in the tipper lorry. Since the first respondent is neither the driver, conductor nor cleaner of the tipper lorry, he is not entitled to get any compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner by allowing this appeal.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent, relying upon clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would argue that the said provision covers the risk of a loading and unloading worker also and as such, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court in Alagadurai vs. P.Immanuel Nasa Justin and Others (2009 (2) KHC 181) and argued that since the first respondent was not being carried in the vehicle and he was only loading goods and the vehicle was in a stationary position, clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the MV Act will not in anyway help the first respondent. Paragraph 17 of the above judgment relied upon by him is as follows :-

“The scheme of the Act is very evident. Liability mentioned under Clauses (i) and (ii) of S.147(1) (b) of the Act must invariably be covered. But the policy shall not be required to cover actual claims for compensation of employees in respect of the death or bodily injury. But even in respect of such employees, if they come under Clauses (a) to (c) of proviso (i), the liability to the extent created under the WC Act of the insured must be covered under the compulsory 'Act only' policy issued by the Insurance Company. In respect of persons falling under (a) to (c) of proviso 1 of S.147(1), not the actual loss but only the amoun