Insurance Company held liable to make payment of compensation.

The Insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tirunelveli on the ground that it has no liability to indemnify the insured, for the accident to 1st respondent.

2. The 1st respondent was engaged as a loadman to transfer crushed stones into the lorry belonging to the 3rd respondent from the crusher unit belonging to the 4th respondent. The lorry was driven by the 2nd respondent and insured by the appellant. At the time of loading the crushed stones, a wall standing in the quarry fell down resulting in an injury to the 1st respondent's right leg and so, a claim was filed and an award of Rs.54,191 was passed. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal.

3. The following questions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments.

“(1) Whether the Insurance company is liable when the policy does not cover injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Act

(2) Whether the Insurance Company is liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, when the lorry was nowhere near the spot where the accident occurred

(3) Whether the injury caused by the wall toppling down would be an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and finally,

(4) Whether a quarry would be a” public place “to bring in the operation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act”

4. The matter was argued over several dates and this Court records its appreciation of the matter in which both the counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent performed their duty as true officers of Court in arriving at the solution. The learned counsel for the appellant narrated the following facts so that the questions could be decided easily.

On 6.12.1995, the 1st respondent and three others, at the request of the 3rd respondent, boarded his lorry bearing Regn. No.T.N. 69-0568 to collect the crushed stones from the 4th respondent's crusher. The lorry was parked at the entrance to the quarry about 250 ft. from where the accident occurred. When the 1st respondent was loading the crushed stones, a wall fell down and the accident occurred. The 1st respondent having approached the forum constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, cannot expect to receive compensation from the appellant who is only liable to indemnify the insured in respect of accidents that come within the purview of Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that when the accident occurred because the wall fell down, it cannot be held to be an accident that happened on account of the use of a motor vehicle. Finally, he submitted that there is oral evidence to show that no one can enter the crushing quarry as a matter of right and therefore, the accident did not occur in “a public place” and hence the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted. He relied on the judgment reported in Mangalam v. Express Newspapers Ltd. 1982 A.C.J. (Supp.) 203 where the Division Bench of this Court held that the Express Newspaper Estate which is a place where entry of public is regulated is not a public place and the Insurance Company is not liable. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the policy is an Act only policy and it covers compensation due to road traffic accident only and that is why originally, the appellant was not made a party to the claim and was impleaded only thereafter.

5. Mr. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand submitted that both Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are welfare legislation and should be construed liberally. He submitted that the words “arising out of the use of Motor vehicle” would also be given a wider interpretation and when the accident occurred because the 1st respondent was engaged in loading stones into the motor vehicle, it would be covered by the words “arising out of the use of motor vehicle”. He also submitted that the factual finding is that the 3rd respondent had engaged the 1st respondent as a loadman. The pol