Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3076
- 1 -
MFA No. 8715 of 2017 C/W
MFA No. 336 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8715 OF 2017 C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2018 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.8715/2017
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, CH-66, 2904/1,
SAPTASWARA COMPLEX,
OPP TO RELIANCE HOME FINANCE,
KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE,
NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL,
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
NO.3/5, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
IIM POST, BANGALORE.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHAKUNTHALA @ SHAKUNTHALAMMA
W/O. SIDU @ SIDDAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
MFA No. 8715 of 2017 C/W
MFA No. 336 of 2018
2.
SIDU @ SIDDAIAH
S/O. SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3.
KIRAN
S/O. SIDU @ SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NERALAKERE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK-571 438.
4.
M. N. NRUPATHUNGA
S/O. PUTTASWAMY,
R/AT N.284, 3RD CROSS,
BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA-571 401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H V BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
R4-SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO. 553/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS. 9,13,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
IN MFA NO.336/2018
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT SHAKUNTHALA
@ SHAKUNTHALAMMA,
W/O SIDU @ SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2.
SRI SIDU @ SIDDAIAH
S/O SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
- 3 -
MFA No. 8715 of 2017 C/W
MFA No. 336 of 2018
3.
SRI KIRAN
S/O SIDU @ SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NERALEKERE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571415.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI M P NRUPATHUNGA
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.284, 3RD CROSS,
BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA-571401
(OWNER CUM INSURED OF THE
LORRY NO.KL-02-R-2184)
2.
THE BRANCH MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, CH, 66-2904/1,
SAPTASWARA COMPLEX,
OPPOSITE TO RELIANCE HOME FINANCE,
KANTHARAJ URS ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-570009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2., R1-
NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT:08/08/2018)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED IN
MVC NO.553/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY
- 4 -
MFA No. 8715 of 2017 C/W
MFA No. 336 of 2018
ALLOWING
THE
CLAIM
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION
AND
SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT
OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE
APPEALs,
COMING
ON
FOR
FURTHER
ARGUMENTS,
THIS
DAY,
THE
COURT
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
The liability of an Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicle Act extends to accidents caused by vehicles carrying goods, where the deceased is travelling as an authorized representative of the goods (loader/unloader).
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - [EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT VS. MOTOR VEHICLE ACT] - Deceased travelling as authorized representative of goods (loader/unloader) - Liability of Insurance Company under Motor Vehicle Act.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased was travelling in a lorry carrying cement as a loader/unloader. The lorry met with an accident, and the deceased died due to injuries sustained. The Insurance Company denied liability, contending that the deceased was only a coolie under the employment of the lorry owner and that the liability was subject to the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the deceased was travelling as an authorized representative of the goods (loader/unloader) and not merely as a coolie. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased was travelling as an authorized representative of the goods (loader/unloader) or as a coolie?2. Whether the liability of the Insurance Company was under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act or the Employee's Compensation Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles:1. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable to pay compensation for any accident caused by the vehicle.2. An authorized representative of goods is a person who is authorized to represent the owner of the goods in relation to the carriage of the goods by road.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal filed by the claimants and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court also directed the Insurance Company to pay interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
MFA.No.8715/2017
is
filed
by
the
Insurance
Company challenging the judgment and award dated
27.09.2017 in MVC.No.553/2016 passed by the Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna, questioning the
liability on the ground that the deceased was not a loader/
or unloader or authorized representative of the goods, but
he was only a coolie under the employment of respondent
No.4. Hence, it is the ground raised by the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company that the liability of the
Insurance Company is subject to the provisions of
Employee’s Compensation Act, but not under the Motor
Vehicle Act.
- 5 -
MFA.No.336/2018
is
filed
by
the
claimants
challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 in
MVC.No.553/2016 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
MACT,
Srirangapatna,
for
seeking
enhancement
of
compensation.
Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.03.2016
at about 12.15 am., near on Santhabacahanahalli, Agalya
main
road,
near
Goruvinakatte,
when
the
deceased-Raju S., was proceeding as a loader in lorry
bearing reg.No.KL-02-R-2184, by that time, the driver of
the lorry drove the same with high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and run the lorry towards the road side
ditch, due to that impact, the left side of the lorry cabin
door was opened and the deceased fell down on the
ground, then back wheel of lorry ran over the deceased
and he sustained injuries and he was shifted to the
Government Hospital and later he died.
- 6 -
Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the records.
The Tribunal has awarded the compensation
under various heads as follows:
Head of compensation
Amount
1
Loss of dependency for
petitioners who are the
wife,
children
and
mother of deceased
Rs.
6,88,500/-
2
On Traditional heads
A. Loss of estate
B. Loss of love and
affection
C.
Towards
funeral
expenses
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
1,00,000/-
1,00,000/-
25,000/-
Total
Rs.
9,13,500/-
5.
The Tribunal has fastened the entire liability on
the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the
claimants.
- 7 -
6.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submitted that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous
passenger. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable
to pay compensation, but the liability can be fastened on
the owner of the lorry. Further, it is submitted that, even
if, the deceased is said to be stated as a loader and
unloader under the employment of respondent No.4, then
the liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the
provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act. Therefore,
submitted that there is no proof that, in the lorry, load of
cement was transported. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the
deceased
was
travelling
as
an
authorized
representative of the goods of cement being loader/
unloader. Therefore, submitted that the liability of the
Insurance Company is subject to the provisions of
Employee’s Compensation Act only. Further submitted that
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
- 8 -
correct, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays for
dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimants.
7.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
claimants submitted that the deceased was travelling as
loader/unloader being an authorized representative of the
goods of cement in the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal is
correct in observing that the deceased had travelled being
an authorized representative of the goods. Further
submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on the lesser side. Therefore, prays for
enhancement of the compensation.
8.
The question to be considered here is, whether
the lorry was carrying load of cement and in the said lorry,
the
deceased
was
travelling
as
an
authorized
representative
of
the
goods
of
cement
being
loader/unloader. In this regard, complaint-Ex.P2 and FIR-
Ex.P1 are to be considered.
- 9 -
9.
Ex.P2-complaint was given by P.W.2-Harsha
who is stated to be the site engineer. P.W.2 was also
travelling in the lorry. Respondent No.4 is the contractor
