Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C. P. Sen and B. C. Verma, JJ.
RAMESH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
GADARAI - Respondents
Misc. First Appeal 83 Of 1972
Decided On : 11/22/1978
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95 - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER - ACCIDENT ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT - NO EXTENTION OF EMPLOYER'S PREMISES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ramesh Kumar, owned a motor-cycle insured with the respondent insurance company. The deceased, Budharu, was employed as a mechanic/helper in the appellant's rice mill but left his job on 3-1-1970. On 16-2-1970, the appellant took the deceased on his motor-cycle to start his mill. On their way, the motor-cycle met with an accident due to the appellant's rash and negligent driving, and the deceased died on the spot. The respondents, the deceased's father, mother, and widow, claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18,000/- to the respondents, holding the appellant liable for the accident and finding that the deceased was dependent on him. The insurance company denied liability, arguing that the deceased was not in the employment of the appellant and that the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The court also found that the deceased was being conveyed by the appellant by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, and therefore, his risk was covered under the insurance policy to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court apportioned the liability between the appellant and the insurance company, holding the appellant liable for Rs. 14,400/- and the insurance company liable for Rs. 3,600/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is not justified and proper? 3. Whether the Insurance Company is liable for compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant based on the evidence presented, including the site plan and the appellant's own statement. 2. The court upheld the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, finding it to be just and proper. However, the court modified the method of arriving at the compensation amount, taking into account the deceased's expected rise in salary and reducing the general damages awarded. 3. The court held that the insurance company was liable for compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,600/-, as the deceased was being conveyed by the appellant by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, and therefore, his risk was covered under the insurance policy to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the compensation amount of Rs. 18,000/- but apportioning the liability between the appellant and the insurance company to the extent of Rs. 14,400/- and Rs. 3,600/- respectively. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents and bear his own costs.
( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, against the award of compensation of Rs. 18,000/-given to the respondents 1 to 3.
( 2 ) THE facts not in dispute are that appellant Ramesh Kumar was the owner of motor-cycle No. MPS 2689 and it was insured with the respondent No. 4, Ruby general Insurance Company Ltd. under a comprehensive policy. Ramesh Kumar owned a rice mill at Silyari where the deceased Budharu was employed as a mechanic/helper but he left his job on 3-1-1970. However, in the early hours of 16-2-1970, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at village Panosari and took him on his motor-cycle for starting his Mill. On their way to silyari, the motor-cycle met with an accident and because of the head injuries the deceased died on the spot. The appellant was unhurt. According to the claimants, respondent No. 1 is the father, respondent No. 2 is the mother and respondent No. 3 is the widow of the deceased and they were dependent on him. The deceased was working in the Mill of the appellant on a salary of Rs. 150/- per month as mechanic and he died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The respondents, therefore, claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. In his written statement the appellant denied that he was rash or negligent in driving his motor-cycle. The appellant was driving his motor-cycle in normal speed and was going from west to east side. The accident took place when he was about to take a turn on the left side on the road crossing at Simga when one motor-truck coming in excessive speed from the northern direction on the Bilaspur-Raipur road took a sudden turn on the left side, that is towards the appellant. The driver gave no horn or warning and the deceased, who was sitting on the pillion, got frightened and he caught hold of the appellant as a result he lost balance and the motor-cycle dashed against a culvert on the road side with the result the deceased died on the spot because of the accident. The deceased was employed in his Mill up to 3-1-1970 and his salary was Rs. 60/- per month and not Rs. 150/-as claimed. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not at all liable for damages. The respondent no. 4, Insurance Company in its separate written statement submitted that under the insurance policy risk of any passenger travelling on the pillion of the motor-cycle was not covered. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not at all liable.
( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal found that previously the deceased was in the employment of the appellant in his rice Mill on a monthly salary of Rs. 60/-per month but he left his job on 3-1-1970. On 16-2-1970, the appellant took the deceased on the pillion of his motor-cycle for seeking his help for starting the mill. On the way, the motor-cycle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant and the deceased died on the spot. The respondents 1 and 2 being parents and respondent No. 3 being widow of the deceased, they were dependent, on the deceased and they were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 18,000/ -. This included Rs. 15,840/-towards loss of income for 44 years at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and Rs. 2,160/-as general damages as he was the only child of the respondents 1 and 2. The insurance Company was not liable as the deceased was not in the employment of the appellant and the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the insurance Policy.
( 4 ) THE questions to be considered in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant ? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is not justified and proper ? and (iii) Whether the Insurance Company is liable for compensation ?
( 5 ) THE only eye-witness to the incident in this case is the appellant himself. There are no other eye-witnesses, this is so because the accident took place in the early hours of 16-2-1970. According to
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
