Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 41254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
K. ASHARAF – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL LATHEEF – Respondent
MFA (ECC) NO. 112 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Jeswin P.Vargheese
For the Respondents: Smt.G.Vidya
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, insurance coverage includes loading and unloading workers; thus, the Insurance Company is liable for compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147(1) - Employees’ Compensation - Liability of Insurance Company - The appellant sustained injuries while engaged in unloading works from a lorry, insured by the Insurance Company. The court ruled that loading and unloading workers are covered under the insurance policy, reaffirming the previous case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Razaque. The appeal was allowed, directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation, interest and medical expenses. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Compensation - The amount awarded by the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner was Rs.5,14,051/- with interest @ 12%. (Paras 1, 2)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant filed for compensation due to injuries sustained while working. (Para 1) |
| 2. the appeal was allowed directing the insurance company to pay compensation. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. the appellant cited a relevant court decision regarding the insurance coverage. (Para 5) |
| 4. the court reiterated existing legal principles on insurance liability for workers. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner is the appellant. The applicant filed an application before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation from the opposite parties on account of the injuries and disability sustained by him on 20.09.2014, while he was doing loading and unloading work in a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-13Q-4560. The 1st opposite party is impleaded as the employer of the applicant and the 2nd opposite party is impleaded as the Insurance Company of the lorry involved in the accident. The Commissioner found that the applicant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5,14,051/- with interest @ 12% with effect from 20.09.2014 till deposit and medical expenses of Rs.6,83,678/-.
2. The applicant is aggrieved since the Commissioner exonerated the 2nd opposite party/Insurance Company and directed the 1st opposite party to deposit the amount.
3. The following substantial question of law was formulated in this appeal:
i. Whether the order of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner exonerating the 2nd opposite party/Insurance Company from liability is sustainable in the light of the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Razaque [ 2023 (6) KLT 701 ]?
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.
Jeswin P. Varghese, and the learned counsel for the
2nd respondent/2nd opposite party, Smt. Latha Susan Cherian.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Razaque [2023 (6) KLT 701] and contended that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the said decision.
6. Admittedly, the applicant sustained injuries while engaged in unloading works from the lorry bearing Reg. No.KL-13Q-4560, which was insured with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has admitted the policy. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is that the loading and unloading worker is not included in the Ext.B1 policy. In the aforesaid decision inAbdul Razaque (Supra), this Court considered the very same question and it is found that the 1st respondent therein who was working as loading and unloading employee of the 2nd respondent therein at the time of the accident squarely comes within the purview of clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, confirming award of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner directing payment of the compensation by the Insurance Company. I find that the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed, modifying the impugned order passed by the Employees’
Compensation Commissioner and the 2nd opposite party/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount, interest and medical expenses ordered by the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner. The 2nd Opposite Party is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months.
