High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. C. VARMA, S. AWASTHY
K.K.JAIN - Appellant
Versus
MASROOR ANWAR - Respondents
Misc. Appeal 15 Of 1981
Decided On : 06/19/1989
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-AA - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - SECTION 110-B - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURER.
Fact of the Case:
Anwar Hussain, a technician in Bhilai Steel Plant, was knocked down by a dumper driven by Rajendran, owned by Bhilai Construction Company, resulting in his death. The deceased's parents filed a claim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, but did not pursue it. The widow and daughters of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was tenable since the deceased's parents had abandoned the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Court found that the dumper driver was negligent and caused the accident. The Court also held that the dumper was a 'goods vehicle' and the insurance company was liable for compensation jointly and severally with the driver and owner of the dumper.
Issues: 1. Whether the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was tenable? 2. Whether the dumper driver was negligent and caused the accident? 3. Whether the dumper was a 'goods vehicle'? 4. Whether the insurance company was liable for compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was tenable since the deceased's parents had abandoned the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Court relied on Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that a person entitled to compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act can claim compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 2. The Court found that the dumper driver was negligent and caused the accident based on the evidence of the deceased's widow and the absence of evidence from the driver. 3. The Court held that the dumper was a 'goods vehicle' based on the definition of 'motor vehicle' in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the fact that the dumper was adapted for use for carriage of goods. 4. The Court held that the insurance company was liable for compensation jointly and severally with the driver and owner of the dumper based on Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals to the extent indicated and reduced the award of the Claims Tribunal to Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of making of the application before the Claims Tribunal until payment. The cross-objection was dismissed. The Court also directed that the entire amount of compensation be paid to the widow and children of the deceased, with a portion of it to be kept in deposit in the names of the daughters to be withdrawn at the time of their marriage or when genuinely required.
( 1 ) THE order in this appeal shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 49 of 1981 (The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi. v. Smt. Masroor Anwar and others) and the cross-objection filed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 49 of 1981.
( 2 ) ONE Anwar Hussain was employed as technician in Bhilai Steel Plant. On 31-5-1976 at 11. 00 A. M. , he was proceeding on a bicycle towards Central Laboratory within the precinct of the plant. At the Same time, Dumper No. 5 driven by Shri Rajendran and owned by Bhilai Construction Company of which Vinay Engineering Company appears to be a unit, was proceeding in the same direction. The two dashed knocking down the cyclist. viz. , Anwar Hussain, who was immediately removed to the plant hospital where he was treated for his injuries for quite sometime before he succumbed to those injuries on 21-7-1976 in the hospital itself. The parents of the deceased then moved the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for award of compensation resulting from the death of "worker" Anwar Hussain and mentioned in the petition that Anwar Hussain has left his widow and children. The employer paid Rs. 10,000/- as ex-gratia payment to the widow of the deceased. Some amount was also deposited with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner issued notices to the claimants. The claimants, however, did not appear before the authority and, therefore, the matter before the authority rested at that. At the same time, the widow and daughters of Anwar Hussain with whom joined Anwar Hussain's father Ibrahim Hussain and mother Smt. Aziza Begum, filed a claim before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- for payment of compensation arising out of death of Anwar Hussain. His father Ibrahim Hussain has since expired. The claimants alleged that the dumper was being driven rashly andnegligently by Rajendran and dashed against the cycle causing fatal injuries to Anwar Hussain. The driver as also the owner were, therefore said to be liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased Anwar Hussain. It was alleged that at the time of death, Anwar Hussain was 29 years of age and would have lived long. He would have risen to the post of Foreman before he could retire on attaining the age of 58 years. In view of his salary and the possibility of rise in the salary during his service career, a sum of Rs. 4,08,440/- was claimed under different heads. Since the dumper was insured with the Oriental Fire and general Insurance Company (appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 49 of 1981), the Insurance Company was also made liable for compensation.
( 3 ) SEPARATE set of written statements were filed. The stand on behalf of the driver did the owner of the dumper had been that it is the deceased who emerged from a side road on the cycle driving it negligently and unmindful of the dumper. The dumper was moving on the street at a very moderate speed and the cyclist, viz. , Anwar Hussain, dashed against the dumper. Negligence of the Rajendran in driving dumper was completely denied and instead the boot is said to be on the other leg. Alternatively, the plea of contributory negligence has also been raised. Dumper is said to be not a goods vehicle and, therefore, is alleged to be out of the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act. Yet another plea raised is that since the claimants have chosen to prefer a claim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, their claim before the Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 110-A is not maintainable. The amount of compensation claimed is said to be highly excessive. It is said that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- obtained by the claimants as ex gratia payment from deceased Anwar Hussain's employer should be set off against the amount that may be assessed as compensation by the Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company is said to be jointly liable to all the amount of compensation which the Tribunal may adjudge as payable
State of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim
Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways
British Indian General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maya Banerjee
Kashiram Mathur v. Sardar Rajendra Singh
Ramesh Chandra v. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation
Chaurasia and Co., Chhatarpur v. Pramila Rao
Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi
M.P. S.R.T. Corporation v. Sudhakar
Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami
REFERRED TO : National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore
Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.