IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 562 of 2003(A)
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VADAKKETHADATHIL PHILIP, S/O. JOHN,
... Respondent
2. THRESIA, W/O. VADAKKETHADATHIL PHILIP,
3. K.J.SEBASTIAN,
4. MATHEW,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
J. B. KOSHY &
K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
M. F. A No.562 of 2003
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
J. B. Koshy, J
This is an appeal filed by the Insurance
Company. The respondents/ applicants are the
dependents of 22 years old man. They applied
for compensation under Workmen’s Compensation
Act contending that due to the negligence of
the first respondent/the driver of the lorry
owned by the second respondent and insured by
the third respondent, their son sustained
serious injuries and died in the course of
employment. It is also submitted that he was
employed by the second respondent as loading
and unloading worker in the lorry bearing
registration No.KL.11C.779. The death due to
the accident is not disputed. The Commissioner
for Workmen’s Compensation awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,87,781/- for the death of
the son of the applicants. Third respondent/
M. F. A No.562 of 2003 -2-
Insurance Company questioned the award
contending that on the basis of Asharani’s
case decision (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani
and ors. (2003) 2 SCC 223) nobody can be carried in a
goods carriage and the claim of any such
person is not liable to be fixed on the
insurer under the statute. It is true that in
view of the decision of the Hon. Apex Court in
Asha Rani’s case (cited supra) passenger in a
goods vehicle is not covered by the policy
unless there is specific coverage mentioned in
the policy. Ext.R1 is the insurance policy
certificate. The above certificate clearly
shows that it is intended for carriage of
goods. Clause No.3 limitation of use says that
it does not cover passengers in the vehicle
except employees (other than driver) not
exceeding six in number under the purview of
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and
thereafter, driver was specifically covered.
Therefore, there was a condition in the policy
M. F. A No.562 of 2003 -3-
to cover passengers who are employees not
exceeding six in number. But they are only
entitled to compensation as provided under
Workmen’s Compensation Act. Contributory
negligence by not travelling in a cabin etc.
is not a ground for denying compensation under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In view of the
specific coverage in the policy of six
employees other than driver under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, we are of the view
that the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation and no interference is required
in the award passed by the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation. Appeal fails and is
dismissed accordingly.
J. B. KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-