_;-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THES THE DAY OF APRIL;2~@§}~§2 __'_ .:'
PRESENT
THE HONBLE ¥V1R.JUST';j CE
AND '
THE HONBLE MR.j"t3§T"»:CE 3A'wA"L3«VRA"H§1M
MESCELLANEOUQ ':21RS7'i'}5§;:%'r>§g;J,;"'F':=eQ.262'3A/é0o«:;{M\;3
@
sHivARAMA§.vPngg:.1ME§3H\§\m}~i2A'«%{'Et;aE_. 5A
A6355 _
OCC:AGR5?.CU_:LT_§}RE;---- ,t\N't:§;§ ' . V-
COOK Hay rw:2,0{~r:i.s__s1c,>,N' ._ " "
W0 5": ANofj.r.>Qs?§;;';<A*rc;_A:,
'{Q:KUi\1T_A V L
[1)ISTRICIT'«:.KAR\fJAR._
...APPELLANT
.{5fir_{ SR1. SIDDAPVVPA S SAJJAN FOR
SR1" R_Av1~.%.(;.sAB'H'*AH:T, AD\/S.,)
e; su3'r€A.\=T::HoNNAppA NAEK
MAJOR, OWNER OF GOODS
'RICKSHAW Nm<A-3o/4442
AT AND POE3T:URKERI
VTQ; KUMTA
DISTRICT:KARWAR
ficflv
-3,
". THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INQIA INSURANCE CO.L"?D,,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KARWAR
RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1 J.S.SHETTY, AD\/., FOR Rwl;
SRI RAVINOPA R EVEANE & SR1 M ARLJN PONr\IAPP_A,,_f««.._’—_
AOvS., FOR R42) « ~ ‘
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION’CA.j:I~:I”3{i)5_TOP__
iVI.\/.ACT AGAINST THE }UDC5MENT_Ai§|Dv’AWAR{)_’:’A.DATED
9.1.2004 PASSED IN MVC NO.1%§1/2.001; CQKD’NC};2.7:4;4.2I’}O1)’~-._ j
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL MA,_CT_ «.A’fJ;D..VC1.VIL
JUDGE {SR.DI\J), CIM, O,K»:,-._I<Aev\.:.AR, P;A'IIIf4L\(v_AI;.Ov»'IAIIG
THE CLAIM PETITION FOP'–r;O.MPENS1AT'IO2j\I ANO"'SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OP I:OMPI~:AISA"TI,OI\IV,_ " 3
THIS APPEAL I:.rjjm_II\!.:3 ;QA}"..g©é'.rP§EARING THIS DAY,
JAWAO RAHIM J., IIZIELWEREDTHE__.E{3l;'E;.O\I;/ING:W
:"TlTe" 'riS4V_VV'iPn:""a__T3;:5eal against the guégment and
award A:o';.I%I'1I.:}f2OO1 On the file of the MACT at
%<V_a'F.wa_r,' being""diSS_a.t%sfied with the grant of <:Om;3ensatiOn as
' ;,Va'i'-SOTI:h_e~OI=deI<._abSOlving insurer of its Hability.
We have heard the learned counsel On both
sid"eS."" A
fig?»
.3.
E3. The appellant filed a claim seeking compensation
on material proposition that on 31.12.2008 at 14f¥30u.hours,
he was travelling in autorici<shaw goods v~e-§n.icl.e'_'bearing
registration No.i<penditure is substantiated through the
vnfietlical records of the hospital.
,4-
4. Appellant contended that due to physical
disability which has visited him as a consequence of the
accident, he lost income. He was an agriculturist and aiso a
orofessioiwai cook. from both the soiirces, he .hai”ri9V”e:¥ir<n'i'ng of
Rs.8,S{}0/– per month. The work is now inii.§'qjos,siio:lVe"
has lost the income.
5. His claim was V
contending that the accident«.:_has» not o_cc’urre_dV”i~–nith’e”:manner
stated bY.l”.h€? DetitiQra5..? an€jl”‘sri§K>nV'{i-!>./._’ elven-if~i’t§ were to be
presumed that not due to the
negiigence of contended that the
driver dio”no’t””h’a-viei or”ii;iio’s.sess effective driving iicence as on
the date”o_fiaccident.. = fl”-ihe insurer also questioned the claim
‘petitio’rie.rvwith regard to his loss of earning and the
.A johgysicalldisability that he suffered.
ownei of the vehicle had also resisted the
<:l'a'im"'ivisn"v'vhich, defence is denial siiholicitoz' without any
"s*oecific plea. However, the insured has elaoorateiy averred
ii i
F
U:
O
that the vehicle was insured validly and liability if any is on
the insurer to discharge the award.
7′ Based on material proposition in _’r;h”e of
the parties, the Tribunal raised rel.e\./,.a”;~2.r’*–.i:ssues”for-.._
consideration and applying the E3\/:i,C’lerj.1C€.ug ‘te’ri-de’i<evvd_.'Vby :'the"—_i[
petitioner as P.W.1 and_doCa:i"ne'ntai'y1.~"ét,<i.t£<e.iiCe '.Vv=¢i'i'i"c,h
comprised the copy of FIR, Metor_'Jeh'§cl–e_Rlrijspegttor's Report
and other ii1VE3Stig'a;..t_.i?"i.<3 the claimant had
substantiated the aCciVd_e'i"it_ negligent driving
by the driverofltiweiofferidinlg who was respondent
No.1 in ithge-:fi_p3arti,./' "'*%*rheV"'gVsaic£ finding has not been
C;Liie3sV"i.iAoi'i-.et§ or the insurer. Tlierefore, it has
reaChed'"*fi¢_nalvivtg?'.' _ A'
it Inna-..th_is 'appeal, the claimant has sought for
» ige-n_V%3ancen74er*it__of compensation on the basis that there is no
' 2reai§'ist'i<:u.C§et'e;i*i4nination of the cornpensation. The tribunal has
haxsimproper approach to grant comeensation under
2 " various heads notiona£ly_
132/
-5-
9. In supoort of the aopeal, the learned counsel for
the apoellant would contend the following:
The claimant was travelling in ‘[Il’l’E?.:’.”«.”V\’;’-E3§’2lCl€
accomoanying the goods and therefore,
covered. The compensation wa_s….Iia_ble_-to”be.oa~id’_¥.Vby_the
insured and the insurer together’-:dand”in” vi’e.w”~o_F thvecistillririency ‘A
of the policy, the insurer dis’c»hai’ge is
urged due to amoutation -the physically
invalid and incapabletot”n_ot’–V_or’a:_iyil’ivi’iVig:”a.g»normal life, out also
has suffered total logs. Thirdly, he had
incurred medical treatment,
ctonveyaiiice1.vvlldie’t.:::ai”id4″iin:<:'i-dentaI which, the triomial has not
granted,'g_'_4Lavstlhglléwiltg that despite the claimant
having=establis»–hed that insurance policy was valid as on the
.A the tribunal unjustlfiably absolved the
H ~.ins_ura'nce~–_co;npany on the ground that cow and calf carried
iiiutlie"—§QAe|fii"cle do not come within the definition of goods and
'h=e..nceVv,"'he cannot be said to have accompanying the goods.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the insurer wotsld
contend that the Tribuna! has justifiably abso__lver:i the
insurance company 0;’ its liability noticing that .ti2e:'”c_la–i,Vmant
was not one of the gaerson covered UflCfE’.’i;:*-théV*th3l,l.i*ah”Qe
policy. Learned counsel further_Co.n.tend_s”tha’t.ji3a’seti=Vonthe
material evidence and record, it’:.’isi,’_niotViced. that greispoiriident ”
No.1 did not have effect’iive””~..valid”5i/:§e.fl_§év:,’_’AtAo._;”d~r.i.v’e goods
vehicle as on the date thelcilgaigivfnant, on his
volition, has stated poiice that he was
Sitting with thgrrlvrivet.*i’n”t.he ‘C”a.b.f,;_r_,1v.g5a.::’ffi’¢’}e:oie, mere was a
clear vioiatior) ,.teriI?T}S anflltonditions of the insurance
gyolicyv asV,”ohfl.y oii*!fe’p_e’és,or1 waswpermitted to be seated in the
vehicle i.e-., the
u;’t~i¥,. l*nl’eV…i/vvoui_rJ ftstthet contend that the insurance
.A 1policyiis.pel4Vls~«.out that the EMT endorsements 13 and 14 have
H anot:bvveein-i__nv,oked by the parties Concerned and no premium
has b–eenfcoliected to cover the ris§< of non~fare paying
V " passengers like the ciaimant in this case. Lastly, he wouid
27-Vcontend that viewed from any angle, violation of terms and
&Q2,
3;-
conditions of the insurance policy are apparent and therefore,
even if there be validity of the isolicy, it is vitiateci by
violation and breach of covenants. Supporting the _i.._n_npugned
gudgment absolving the insurance company-;._”*-.hfe’_V:”*s4eel<s
dismissal of the appeal.
12. Keeping in mind what’i’s»u.rge-d b.’oth.x’svi4ijes’;itsis
necessary to first deai with the1″c:ue..stion ~.iii!1″-a’:tne?’–:the
trieunal is justified in abso|vi.ng~.t_the i”r’.sur’ance “c..oi*r”ipa’ny ofits
liability.
13. The arguifnegats :the”~.Vl.ea..rjVned counsel for the
insurer oncrthe as’pec_ts»..referred” to above are seemingly very
impressing, b*L:Vt”oAfi’._c|’oser.examination, the gtounds are only
wortlj: reje’ctiVon~for téiesfollowing reasons:-
i.,T:he’*driving”‘l’icence issued to respondent No.1 has been
“sje’r’iou’s».!.py”5it;.es.tiooeo. We have examined the copy of the
Eic4ei1Ce~~i/Vihi’ci’2 is at E><.R.3. its perusal reveals that
respsonsdent No.1 has been issued with a permanent driving
..,,4'_"'V!l,ce'.a'ice valid from 28.1.2000 to 27.1.2020 with further
-9-
endorsement that it permits him to drive transport vehicle for
the period up to 5.1.2004. Learned counsel for thle”‘»i.nstirer,
referring to the other entries in Ex.R.2, conte~nd’ed__’__’thatuthe
autoricl<shaw in Question was a transportiv-ehi:c.l'e,' §'3t.lt" theg_
licence granted to respondent;No.1"'wa«s 'toV._:cJ'r.ivve'"a__honé,
transport vehicle. He has been perrhitted .clr'iv"e t'ra"risoe.rt
vehicle only from 6.1.2001. "Tshy:e"i»'efore.' it h'as-I construed
that he had no valid ':q.¢i_vinji.'l'iV¢§s.{i.ceV'.vt"o..driveuiaHdoods vehicle
like the one in Ciuestiofi;
14.5 referred above spells
out issued has valid from
28.1.2000 and it is undoubtedly issued to
the claiihaynt the occurrence of the accident in
ThnisV–d:ocun1ent also substantiates undoubtedly that
, :i=espoVhdent”‘i\lo.1 is authorized to drive transport vehicle up to
is only a condition on which licence with a
va4l’iditydfrdm 28.1.2000 up to 27.1.2020 is issued, which
‘*m.e1ariVs” that respohtleht No.1 was duly authorized to drive a
‘”gt’ra’ns;>ort vehicle for the period indicated above. The
ate
~20-
accident in this case has occurred on 31.12.2000 which is
certainly after the issuance of the driving lic’e»nce to
respondent No.2. Theeefore, the contention..~«o«f.’ut~h._e”‘msuyrer
that 6.1.2001 should be taken as the’date-..tVo:.A_l.r’ec_ko0n”ilthlédn
validity of licence is untenable and
15. We also l’e]’eC*€fl’..E3u conltention
as per the Regulations of vreh’i~cies’ ‘:Aci::’,f§ licences are
issued initiaily for a’ aiftler which, the
license e><pires.' ihis'AiVsy_Vljesca~¥..iVse thei'AriVsjt.1rV'ance company has
on its own%_" iiiri-K'"ivtsigevidence for alacing
reliance i:tp;_ ;[t'V"lSilfiig-réf'Q–i;€ V"i;3o'i.ind by the dOC%.%l"i'1E'fltai'y
evidence. 'whvivchf-.it4'iha's._0;;ro'd;iced. Since the same is not,
bi'ought'i4_nto_ as no official from the Motor
Vehicles Deoaiitnient has been E*_'XE}i'TT§i3EEd by the insurance
.0 :comp.aid..y–.i;Ao"~-.e_licEt as to whether such an issuance is iegaliy
~.o'e.r.ii1ivss«Vi"b»Fe'*ors.not, we reject the arguments to the contrary
ad4'van"cAed"in this case and hold that there was a valid driving
"iicence possessed by respondent No.1 effective as on the
3 is
-13-
date of the accident i.e., 31.12.2090. This point is therefore
answered in favour of the appellant and against the insurer,
:6. The other issue to be considered is wViti°..’.[reg_aVrd_
the position of the claimant. Was he a fare payiV_’n’g_vp’a.ssenge’r,cg9″t,_
a n0n~fare paying passenger orfiga perm ‘:acvc_oi:ip._a’nyginAg
goods. It is assertively urged on be’h_aif of therinsiirer t’i”:at’g
the ciaimant has to be con.stru_Ved_ aslla. paying
passenger because the’ lperflthe permit,
has oniy one seating ~fij-(‘;V.l:lf’JVlA’i’7:1…:vv».,?lwh€%’€fOF’€, it was
urged that pegi-fsoinh is averreci and no
other vehicle. It was also
urged that ‘even.’ii-fit’it’i’s__:p~re’suiTied that the claimant was
accornpanyiijg Apex Court has held that he
S|’iOL!.l§g travel only:Vin the cabin. Since in this case, he could
»no’t-.hav_e rt.ra.\/e-!.led in the cabin as there was only one seating
not be covered under the policy. Reliance
_V is p’l”acet§_o’ri”:the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
“”A4′”K._gri1Ty_i£o””‘Ir\iom INSURANCE CO.tTD., vs SURESH i<.K. AND
— (2008 AC} 1741). He has also placed reliance on
-19-
the decision lo the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD, vs oeviiaeoov KONDA REDDY AND OTHERS i,w1p”(‘2oo3)
ACC 214]. Reliance is also placed on the oecision«..i.n_A»t’h_e”,jcase
of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co,i.To., vs_H\!Eowig:i’Ti’4 %A’i§.;5″
omens (CD3 2oo7 SC 187) and themdeciasion’iinttf’ieV.,ca’se or
NATIONAL INSURANCE co.L”rb._, vs4t?Ho.1_i_ET::,.r:iiArtAt;a;ivii§iA.,T
AND omens (co; 2oo7 sc to co,nt’end tat except
driver and cleaner wh0i_”a,_re _;’3ermi~t:te,d”-tyo be carried in the
vehicle, no other person is’i~c_ov”,e’red u.n’cie:’r.t’i.ie policy, be it a
fare paying or;ho’n.:fareiioayinro pas’se’n..g_eVrf.’
:7 …. _W’ve_V”i1a-:~g:e,, i;e’st.oVwed..__our?serious concern to these
points V’:.;rg*e{§.. V’Vl’\i’fe:Aessa’r.iVliy*,.. ezwminatioa of the terms and
conditions””a_’nld,vcovenants;-‘of the insurance policy becomes
imp.o.ijtant to det:i–de the issue.
is no dispute that the policy issued in this
caseiis a. policy and not Act policy. The said policy is
Reading of E><.R.1 reveals that, apart from
V."v'.co1l_e:t:'ting the basic premium prescribed by the ?RCA, the
__i_r§surer has collected additional premium to enlarge its
(34% i
-13-
liability and to cover certain category of persons. One such
endorsement that we notice reads as follows:
Add:for LL to persons employed in conner§t.i’on’r’.’.j’L:’—- ‘V’
with the operation andflor loading, LJHlO.a.dV_l:F’l=§x .
,_
Motor Vehicle wt 17, premitilh c’ollepcted.;-is.
19. The learned co__Lin..sel, r_ef”e,rrihg’:_:””i:o this”
endorsement, contends lihat tpretmmrri collected
is for the purpose of the driver of the
vehicle and none:’el_se. is advanced
on the not covered under
the Act premium was collected.
It is to”t_alh/i of the conspectus of the
provisions of-.i;he Act. A’To*:remind ourselves, we need to refer
to tt}’e3’«:.pro:vis%ioris”ofSection :47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It
V’V re psi’: K’
“*147.’.V-v’Re.i}iliremerits of policies and limits of
V’.””!ial)Vi:lit’y”.f~ (1) in order to Comply with the
to recygirements of this Chapter, a policy of
V’ V. _ fiinsurance must be a policy which-
3%
..{.1..
(a) is issued by a person who is an
authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of
persons specified in the policy to the extent.
specified in subwsection (2}~
U)
V ‘pp bjl place;
against any liability;…which_–‘¥na’;,{‘_jbe”~l
incurred by him in re.spé:ct-clef.’
death or bodily _in}ury..to–._any ypte;rs:on’,
including owner’-v.yp4o’f..ythe “globes
authorised reprye.se’nta’tiye carried _in
the vehi’cl._effyor c–l_an§a§lje~.._toy”any property
of a third par_tyl’y”c’ausedlV”by:ojr arising
out’ of the »lu_’s.:e ..o’ff”_the’ vehicle in a
, by [§1:é”{§_€a_tl’l of or bodily ingliry to
= a’ri_y”‘:_pas’s–enge–r of a public service
\i’ehi:;|e’.c:ae…sled by or arising out of the
Iuseof the vehicle in a public place:
a policy shall not be required-
(i)_”‘toyA:cover liability in respect ef the death,
arising out of and in the course of his
it lkemployment,
of the employee of a person
“insured by the policy or in respect of bodily
gs?»
-15..
injury saistainea by such an employee arising
oat of and in the course of his employment’-“‘–.g
other than a liability arising under
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 -1-
1923) in respect of the tieath of,
in}’ury to, any such employeey”
(a) engaged in driving the yehicieylor
(b)
(C
(d
)
if it is a public service y”e.h”iicIe
engaged as con:~dg::ct0r.Alo’f the it
vehicle or in exa’mfiign.in’g._tii–.t:l<et'sta,i3AFl.d
the vehicl_e, or ' l
if it is;algolods'cama*ge';~=b'eing._…..:A
ca rri ed ;'i n the' "vein i cl ego r~~.
\
J
V to,gvcoy_e”r ;c’;.:;g_y_ co_n’t.ra’ctua.l_”_
iiiiabilitylfgg_s__ »
E><pla"n._atiovnV.°~For removal of doubts, it is
herebyad'ecV_lar'edx'that the death of or bodily
v-i._.i'n}'2,,L'1ry"i-to any"""person or damage to any
a third party shall be deemed to
-.__l’ia”ve’A_’jbeegn”caused by or to have arisen out of,
“‘~..the_*’t:s’e of a vehicle in a public: place
n”o.ti/igeithstandirig that the person who is {lead or
it Vll”‘én;’:ired or the preperty which is damaged was
“not in a public: place at the time of the
gab
-1!)-
acciaeht, if the act or omission which led to the
accident occurred in a public place.
{2) Subject to the proviso to sub–section
policy of ihsL.iraht:e referred to in subwsectiiimei”7″
(1), shaii cover any liabiiity ihc.u.r_red i
of any accident, up to foe?-lioy\ivin’g,..’liiré*é–its’,=if-,__.
namelyr
(a) save as provided in claiiselibe),
the amount of liability iriiciii-‘Vredz;
(b) in respectvof cla’i'”éiage:tVo’ by
p ropert§:..V ofée’ t.tii.Vrt’i. pa_rty,_ il.in*iit
of rupees”‘S_i><. t.fiG»u4.S'"rii:li€§i
ivProvi_dee..'vVthat.Aaiw.v"';3__oli_cy' of insurance issued
with anvlimited'l:_iVa_bilit«v'r»ar*id in force, immeaiately
before 'the =e:ornrr§en'c.ellmei1t of this Act, shall
C.Q'i':1t'vii"i'L!€ to'"b.eV effective for a period of four
«.Arnont'h}s after such COlTlfTi€'flCEEi}"é€flt or till the date
ofu._su,ch policy whichever is earlier.
(3) A .._;jol~i.Ac::i,/A shall be of no effect for the purposes
df,q__t3i1is Chapter unless and until that is issued
Vl"~.l3y the insurer in favour of the person by whom
"the policy is effected a certificate of insurance
§t'Qv/
(4)
..]’7..
in the prescribed form and containing the
prescribed particulars of any condition subject
to which the policy is issued and of any otherfh-,T
prescribed matters; and different for;”i”i’sV:,”z””-V
particulars and matters may be prescribed”iAn”V–.,i’L:’~–..f ‘V’
different cases.
Where a cover note issued by,ftjhe–_
under the provisions of this4’iCh’a_pter >o;rA”the
rules made thereunder–.i__s*..;_jot foEl_ow.ed’-.2by”a'”
policy of insurance V\!l’C|”lllj___l:’tVl””.».FjZ’_ p.r_escri’b’-edv_tiin?e,
the insurer shal’ly_4_.”t»with’iAn §.se’ven.VVl”t§ays of the
expiry of the period ofthe’ya%idii_ty’iAA.of’li’t_he cover
note, notifyiithe ra:’€i:o r’evg.iVsteri’v;i’cj’authority
in whos.e=.retjo_rc;s-tiie’v_ehi¢;.lej;to v\i’h’i’ch the Cover
note relates.__has*..b’e»e_riregistered or to such
other State Government may
prescribe.- V A
‘Notyvithstandin-g–«’anything contained in any law
._fo.r the.._t’i’m_e being in force, an insurer issuing a
“7___g)o’li:ciy,_of:’ir’i”suran<:e under this section shall be
lia_bi~e_3t.oA indemnify the person or classes of
persons specified in the policy in respect of any
if 'lanliability which the policy purports to cover in
-13-
the case of that person or those classes of
persons.”
20. From the extracted portion of the pro-x/i<si,_o-«ns*,,A'of
Section 147, it is clear that in respect of the .g'ootls::"y,éhi,cl–'e,2
the insurance company is statutori.!y~l.i.a,ble.'_'toVvV'cotker."th'e',
against death or bodily injury to the dnriver,:dt:le'a.ner,
tznloader anti employees offthe iotszirettf Vizioextenth
provided under the,' Woryk-then-Ts"–~..,' Conép-ensation Act.
Undoubtedly, the di'iver'kUf,the_v\}eliic'le.f_a,nd other employees
named in the pr_o'vi._sioh_"VaVrie' "Vstat?J'toi'ily". Once the
insurance po'licy.__is:..i.s;sueo_._a;s–»..i_s 'r'etV§uirVed under Section 146 of
the Act, the.Vinsti-:fa'nce*~_:co.rripany has no escape, but to
indemnify the"insuretl,'ag,aiiist the claim from driver and other
categ{oryi*~of persons mentioned in the provision. Hence,
V_.there ES',li'C)r"~-£'§iJ€StlOl'l of any additional pramizgm being
co|l'e.cted'to–__c'o,ver the such risk. Of course, the insurance
con1x4pan'y,'c'a"n collect extra premium to enlarge its liability
otherwise statutorily restricted to the claim under
— ti1e”Wo;*kmen’s Compensation Act. To this extent, collection
49-
of extra premium is §}el’§’?”llSSlb|E. For the test to find out
whether the premium collected is to enlarge ‘{h§S’_l”i”Eibl|ity
more than the statutory limit provided or does
other category of persons, we need to examine”‘tsheaclaéusein
the policy itself. The insurance “o,ei’ng-Via
transaction, terms and conditions ‘ofhthe ‘bin’d”‘the=,
parties. In the instant case’V,2a”s refeVr’red”=tVo above, the
insurance company has;:coyllect’eHcl’i;4y5;.j_Vl§V,i”i:y.additional premium
specifically indicating employed in
connection wit;’ti”oip_e’rat%:on unloading of the
motor category of persons
coverecvi’iV”l’3<y"rtihfeu cuovllvecéting additional premium
excluding. thedr'-iyver:y,:_ho–.V_:i:s»»:si:-atutorily covered under the Act
as referred4°toV_V'aii:io've;'i. Therefore, it is for the insurance
'lV'"comipany-ii.to"–spell oi..i"t;'"as to cover the risk of which category
had collected Rs.§5/–. The insurance
coni.p'Vanyv.i.s'totally silent on this aspect. It is for this reason,
ha'ye__A'3~to apply the doctrine of contra proferentum to
,,,.i'1nter.pret this clause. Since an attempt is made to contend
thiat this clause refers only to the risk of the driver, we are
§.Q»/
-20-
constrained to hold that it is to be interpreted in favour of the
insured and also to hold that it covers the riS§< of peitsons
other than the driver like those who are e;:i~,ol'oy.ed'.j'_fo.r
loading, unloading and for the purpose of {i'i<":_1.l'yr_i_?t':(§iJa'iiA.A_(t.::'el.'('}i" trie
vehicle.
21. At this juncture, ‘it.uis._i’hateriVaiVto’l..vi’iQ.fé….r.hajt their’
insurance conwany avaified full_.!.i:oAerty’i..§efore’the Vfiiiriburial to
resist its liability who has been
examined as l?{.W:.’1,__ hytisttociilar testimony
before the stotmunexplariatory in his
version restriction in the gaolicy to
absolvefiythe’ in fact, he makes no
mention oi”the additione;al.:’ij.»i’eihium coliected and the purpose
for c~ollectio”n..:mihoiigh it may not be necessary, for the
[?Ll:F’pQS:3.’Ofv¢lE.i’_l{y, we feel it appropriate to extract the
by hirn, which is as follows:
‘j”The vehicle in question insured with the
respondent insiirance company was a
goods carrying vehicle meant for carrying
527/
-35-
out
of goods and the petitioner was an
unauthorised passenger in the said vehicle
and his risk is not covered under theft’.
relevant policy. The vehicle in qeestio_ri’_:”is”U-..l’
meant solely for carrying of goods
person is allowed to travel “in the
vehicle.”
22. It is therefore cleartlnat the in’-suilrasncei company
itself has not placetl V –héfr’Qrei._ “C_O%li2r’ti_»€ltliel’ a specific
defence or substantive ev!.cl.e:nce-.toy p’o’int”‘oL;t’ that this policy
is only to the l..p’i’ovi’d’es. It is to our
the policy is uncioubtedly a
e><amination -we. :'foun:i «..t'li'a"ti«.
package polir:y'l'a.'nVd.V_once._it'=i,s_ seen that it is a package policy,
then subwlsectiion "filial? comes into operation which
mandates': "Ilia-tint/it'l1stérnding anything contained in any
law 'l'f:1r:"'.lt:l:e"«ijime being in force, an insurer issuing a '
Apoiicfyli under this section shall be liable to
V V' _ indemnify -the person or classes of persons specified in
Vlyflzewsypolicy in respect of any liability which the policy
-33-
purports to cover in the case of that person or those
classes of persons. ”
23. Thus, it is clear that the categoryg…_o4f.V,’p’ei:so’n.s
merztioned in the policy for whose risi< aC§ditiOJfi3:|:
collected are of different category";/Mcilasse-as i«t_i1e"'d«'ri\n/'er
and hence, in terms of the ,po|icyr','s._the_ insurer"i.5'~|ia=?oie,v'to,,
indemnify the insured against a;'n§,5":!aini iron': H
24. We must furth*’e_r, r–iot§.jCe :a’p_art from an that is
referred to, the case to” rhore than simpler.
The C|€iii’HE3J.«’.t”*».’|1i:§i%.§_-.’_ sp:e_i:ifi,Ca||.};fconteréded that he was
accoiripao§i’ng:i,5»tVhe’»;’i;jVoo_§is…:’_i.e., rm and Calf for transporting
from one destin’a.ti’onf.to’–~a:no.ti’ier. It is during transit that the
unfortunate ‘”ar:_r:ider2t occtirred. He therefore claimed to have
‘V’«.flCC’o.|hpianie*(‘1&thehgoods. The provisions of Section :47
‘t._,e’S<t.era'ct:ed.._h"Vh'a,ho;ue undoubtedly covers the person
ac{;o_h1pa~ny_i'n–g the goods as also his representative.
V"»»ThereFo.ij_e, statutorily also, the person accompanying the
° .g'oor§_fs is covered.
3.97
-23-
25. The question now is whether cow anti calf carried
in the vehicle can be taken as goods. An attempt is made by
the insurer to contend that carrying of small size avnimlals or
small quantity of goods does not give benefit’flof._:_Vsocix_
protection. It is relevant to refer to the clefi_o~iti»o_r§’~ol”*g:ooos_as..
found under Section 2 clause (13) \:A{?3lC:h.,i:éa”Cl,,S f
“Goods” iocliioes Ii\vre.st’o._ck, and’-an’g{t?é~–5;ré”g”” it
(other than ec;__uiprnenVt_._ol=vdinarily .osed_AAvyitl1
the vehicle} ciarr-ied–‘_xbyVla~..__veh!c|e except
living oersons, butgoesnot_-~i«.n%:lA:j’Vdegluggage
or pei’son’avl_eff;acts r”riotor car or
in ai…t’-;ailé:lr__«.attache§ to .motor car or the
passengers travelling in
It clear that goods statutorily include
l.ivestocl§.~.. I.Ijx”‘~EhE3 instant case, cow and calf carried in the
i}ehi.c.le V”be’i_’e.g stock is covered under the definition of
V–Vgooos 7″
av
27.
-34-
When this provision was confronted to the
learned counsel for the insurer, he responded relying vor”:,Rule
74 or the Motor Vehicle Rules which reads thus:
74.
t (al
Carriage of animals in goods
cattle shall be can’ie<:i::';in »a"go"ocls' –veli.iVcl,e""iVVn_ a
public place LIWESS." i it it
(A) in the case olfigoat, sheep._dleer'-:or«.p.ig–f~
{l} a mihimt.iml"'~Ǥloo_r C132 square
metre stitch' cattle is
p ro d ed i'i:.,th§9 l.e"s~;.
(ll)
_é’.atle_;i_aVnd A. l’ V’
V proper’-a’rjra’rig”e_rheVnts”for ventilation are
“double decked goods
V A I: e it:l:é. –
‘deck flooring is covered with
VV:”:e_e4t:a|»~sheets with a minirmgm height of
‘V tmzs. raised on all four sides so as to
piavreilt the animal waste matter such as
urine, litter, etc., falling on the animals on
.”‘V”t§”ie lower deck;
proper arrangerhents for drainage are
made on each floor;
wooden battens are provided on each floor,
(C)
to prevent slipping of hoofs of the animals.
air
{ 1} V.»
.'”?-1
{8} in the case of any other cattien
(ii) a minimum fioor space of 2m><1m per
head of cattie and half of sa.:c_h floor
space for a young one of cattle is
weaned is provided in the ve.hi,Cl»e.}'a-"r~
(ii) the lead body of rm?’ Velhviclie::_””isi”»
constructed ofhistrong _vv”ooc§–ej;~.. ‘p*%ar1.ksvs.Vo’r”»
of iron sheets::,with..a f}rn’i:ni”‘ii.ji_3*i’h”h’ei_g htof
1.5 metres me€:.sui*ed fr£}’i’.’IjI:’t’lie floor, of,
the vehicIe_,,:’on__all sicies’ tVi’i,e’V’b’ac:k;
(iii) floor’ i3atta__ns’»v,_ai”e_, prolvieciecl prevent
sli’;§.o’i’:i=ig _
(iv) every ‘proj’ectioi’i_.-.l_ilVi<e'lfyto cause suffering
if -._to and
cattle a–rc?f .p'roVoeVr|y secured by ropes
X" V3'«tyie'{%,:Vto,,__th.esides of the vehicle.
Exolanatioii.,_"\i{Eatt4|"e.fl."for the gorooses of this setvrule
Vinclzgdesyigoat, A's_he"e@, buffalo, bail, ox, cow, deer,
~~i,hq;_?se, ponAy,«ri11_tii,-a, ass, pig or the young ones thereof.
'-{Ell "I'\".l:V(4Z1"'~AV&.'3Vlll|17é3l belonging to or intencieti for a circus,
, 4
Q"-.,'i-nena"g_e'rfie' or 200 shall be carried in a goods vehicle in
a .:)'tiE3li«-c place unless:
air
~l()~
(i) in the case of wiid or ferocious animai, a
suitabfe cage, either separate fr”o.m or
integrai with the read body of
used of sufficient strength the
anirnai secureiy at ali ti_i’:n.e_s’=i.sV’;:i:royide’d;._
and
(ii) reasonable f§oo”rs;i~ac’e for’-each arai_f:m.afI’f-i.s
providedm-«the venicie
(3) No goods ve”hi_c|e wh’er’i t_c’ar’r,r_i.’ng any”‘ca”ttie or any
animal shaft be driyen-att_a}.spee’dV:i_inexcess of 24 krns.
28. ‘T§jis;:_”‘Ruie’* »i:o”5′.’jwfi’ichi’ the” éearned counsei has
referred; oniy”§.é.Stti%’]ates’a..;§’d deais in what manner §ive stock
couid befcarried.’ fit:.fdVoe’s._n’o.t~”refer to prohibition of carrying
of livestock in _ariy.f–ve’hici’e in any circumstance except the
‘ “mini”.°riiJi’h*.re’*:;.tiiremeyfnfthat is necessary for the gaurpose of
‘x’tra’rtiysb’or:t:i’n:g”tVh*e:iji.r\/estoci<. This proposition in defence by the
insLir.anc:e-~co4ji:rripany certain§y is of no avail because the
'q.uestio"ri.that we are deciding is whether cow and ca§f carried
i'i'n't_ifie}'vehicie comes under the definition of goods. Being
.jsva__Eisfied that iivestock comes under the definition of goods,
-37-
this COl”lt€lltiOi1 which was admittedly not taker: before the
tribunal and is urged for the first time in this appeal is also
worth rejection.
.29. Having thus Concluded that livestocirwCa.r’;vf-egg}
the vehicle was “within the rraeaning of_-goo..cis.’f’~iirmtadg:i’s’~.
rnutandis, the provisions of SectienM}?b1ece.i’ne’s”-apn’iié,.Ca~i?;ie
and a gserson &3CC{}lT”l;3€jl’.\,/ii'”lg’ zzueh goods V’oeco:.*n’efs’s_tatr.;toriE\,r_
covered.
30. A iast <A {jourt vi'r'i–.?._t-i'i"e decision cited
by him,,'a goods would be covered
under thevpolicy «to travel in a cabin in a seat
provided a;34aurt,_:Vfrorr': theV"'driver's olace. Since the seating
'lit"c:.apalei'ty1f'of 'this vehE'c'l'eV was only one, he submits that the
""p.eVl'sio'Vncr a:'c-eo'n3ipa"ri.vrrig goods couid not have travelled and
there,4fore,,.- ~the,re is no statutory coverage.
" In the decision relied upon by the iearned
— clounsiei, what is considered by the Apex Court is different set
gigs c
-33-
f’a<:ts. The Apex Court noticed that along with goods, the
person was found to have carried a luggage. Besides,_.-he was
not travelling in the cabin along with the driver, ljiJ'tl_w.a"s.,'in
the carrier portion. In such circumstances, t–'–ii'e' £\p,ex:"'Co:1–rtl'v.
held that if a aerson were to claim»-.orotéectyioni,';,i%é'déii thex'
statute, he must not only accompany ";:goi'odsi"'-as
also must be shown to ha–v,e'-._sat'"in__ vv.eh"i,cl'e'r~rwith an
permissible seating capacity. j_T.-n-t.h_a.t"c.o.nte}< Court
held that seating capaciityhgo-f .imp0rtaht. In the
instant case, conscious of the
fact that only' vehicle, then it has
to _c.ollVect extra premium to cover
different" like loaders, unloaders and
ernployees in._,con§éec.t-ion': with the vehicle. Therefore, the
fi"c'orét'ei1tl=oin that coveirage of insurance is relatable to the
the vehicle is certainly untenable.
32′,’ For the reasons discussed above, we are satisfied
theiiclairhant COEEWES under the category of persons
aw
-30-
agricultural activity is impossible so also his avocation of
cook. He does not claim to have any income from thelaoded
property, but has assertively contended that hei’~.$/:iral_s~~.Vvan
agricultorist which invoiye physical fitness. We
satisfied that the claimant has es_ta.bl_i_she;-1″t}ia-t’.’;Vthere.. is–.a°V
relatable diminishirag effect in |”iis~.’eariring’*ca’p:a’city:’itr~..A.’i1.ije
doctor has assessed the pliylsieazl disability A=«E3_®–9z.’r~;H the”
whole body and therefore, y_|.ORS:s,__o§_v income has to be
determined keeping iii”‘-rni.ifio’.y ‘4f”uccr’ir;:t’:io,nal incapacity to
which, the claim_a–nt tias”becomei.._yic’tir’n.7tiaviiig noted that
loss of limb..hra”s44tlie:_ _effect__o’r_1. ea;-“nfi’n_ci through, manual labour
is impovssiblel’The c:§§aii:*i’a’o§_’ WOlJ.|dWb€ entitleo to 100% loss of
income throtigh ._ag:ricilil~tu’re:” Since Coo§<ing also requires
physical fitness', 'thatljobwsis also now impossible. We are
. ."'ther'etoi'»e'A satisfiedthat even though the doctor has stated
-physical::’d._i%s’ab”;s.|_it.$/ of 80% of one limb, the earmng capacity
inust ber~pro43portionate to it. =We find sufficient force in the
V”‘»conten”t»é.Qn of learned Counsei for the claimant that the
“-y”tr’i’b_o_n’al has been totally irrationa|- in taking 6% as the
(},Qr
“39-
accornpanying the goods, covered statutorily under Section
147 of the Act.
33. The tribunal fell totally an error in a.h.§;gi.{ri.%.’gy’t<he
insurance comgxany, without taking into consid"e.ratio*nlallthe
factors discussed above. The directivoln'directi'ng_" to
discharge the award is unsustainarble–._and we'.'fasten'"vthe.y
insurance combany with iiabil§tyV'to inde'i'n_nify.'.tliev;insnéed in
respect of the award in 'ta.your"lof the c'l'a-%.rnant.VV"f
34. With this, we”s%%a’ll Vconsidleir “determination of
coinpensationi, -.f:l’ia._i_ni.a”int1:.2 has fA’.sL.ic’ceVssfi;lly established
suffei’in{;;s ifof~.j5injni3§i4es_”a.n’d thus, has established nexus
betweenvthe acciydent.’a’n.d*:%%”e injuries suffered by him and
glermfiliyelit b’§’iysical.v”iiicaijahlcitation. The fact that the claimant
‘ “has*suff.ered..an”:putation of one lower limb below knee and
limb and injuries to other parts of the
body’ is fL;!.|\/4:{3\Lfld€l1C€Cl frorri the testimony of the claimant as
theft/iedical Officer P.W.2 ~Dr.Suresh G. E:3hat. The
“‘«§:§’vid_e’iE;ce is so clear that it fully establishes the claimant is
_n_o5w physically wrecked. Having lost one lower limb,
a,.l.’»~
~3i~
percentage of physical disability in respect of the injuries
suffered by the claimant.
35. At this stage, the learned counsel for
wouid submit that be it as it may,.even cl-l’a4ii%é’an:tc
suffered any physical disability, rheaisabriiilityfiii’mvLis.i§ he
terms of the schedule prox/ici~ed tinder_tiaVe”‘v._;V\i”oVrl<'§21en'scV
Compensation Act.
36. We regrettallzlij/–.raota} insurers have
misconstrued the’- yery;”Vc’o’r’icent graht” of compensation
under the it/l:e’;hicle3_A_ ‘Act -..anti indulged in litigus
is either deliberately or
intentionalvly’–ign’o.rin§i’wtih’e_:1l’a.c~t that the claimant / appellant
has SQlI_ght cl’ete’rr’ninati’ono? compensation under Section 166
“of thie’:’Miotor-yehiclieshct and not under the provisions of the
~Cforn”_i:ensation Act. They seem to ignore the
p;~o’v._isioii,s.’?lf”kction 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act which
T3″~’«i___”-mandates: that éetermination of compensation and aware
7V.”2:I”7iJS’t:’A.’A-be “just”, Therefore, the tribunal was required to
gggir
-32-
‘
award Compensatior: just’. Compensation, neither high nor
low.
3?. We therefore disapprove the –‘-th’e_
insurance Company in trying to impede the “pii«e.{jess”‘wof– _gz’antA
of ‘Just’ compensation by uiitenabie de«fencee..as. taken’-ss._abA-ave
which we have rejected.
38. Coi’nir1Q tdytiijs zaélic-i~,–;a,?’ifdéte’rniin”atio.nfiwe notice
that 80% physicai disa4’i’3i’i’ity evaiuated in
reiation to whovie.::§3o.dv the ciaimant to
Carry out business with the
disabiiif:VV\,’r’ wi:§.Li’:’ti”Viae appropriate to take his
loss ofvearniing We have to determine the
ii1COiT:H’3_VWhi”Cuf1 _the..’i:§aii’ifria”nt had prior to the a<:<:ident. The
"vi"vrwo"b:t..a:vdACati"ot.ns w§ii'C'h"Vhe has stated has not been disputed
_ai*.d,itrsisjwerii"e.st_abiished, at the modest caicuiation he wouid
iiot._.hVave.h–ad_.eilarnitzg of less than Rs.3,OOO/A per month. The
V'-»tribunai_hIas again uereaiisticaiiy taken his income at Rs.70/»
"""pero_dfi.ay and on that basis, determined the compensation.
set aside the said mode and rnethodoiogy and we take
Ni
~33»
the income at Rs.3,008/» pm. and 36,080/» pa . The age of
the claimant at the time of accident was 53 years the
multiplier applicable would be 11, Therefore,
income wiél be Rs.2,77,2{}O/»- which we 3Wa.l".d'_"lfii}.Od~Al'fy'¥.'ljgntl'leV "~.__
award of the tribunal.
39. Since it is a case_.relatin’gto.. personal”irijur–y,”the-g
claimant has to be compensateds.,fo»r loss of aeéeiiillties, loss of
enjoyment of iife, towards’f. rei-nfibearsementii of medical
expenditure, future rnedicaltrveatiineovtawsalso the artificial
iimb, conveya:’i’c*e.,V,:p,’diet, attend’antf_”e.haVrfges and above all,
towards pain a_l-it}. su’ffer4i”rl,’fi:_’;V,,'”\4\l§: a”r,e”‘satisfied from evidence
and other «attentJiif’i’-cg,’4ci.,rc’u{n’g.tances that the Tribuiéal has not
awarded a’ro_’oorvtio’n_a4t’e fC):””‘L_,L”c3’ll”I and suffering the claimant has
endmfed as a£so”o.nVother heaas. Therefore, we award to the
cla’im,an_t: a –:;,,u”m__ of Rs.30,000/w towards pain and suffering,
?<s.V'S–O,,O'{}G,?_'%-__'towards medical expehditare, conveyance,
.q attelndanvce"charges and special diet, Rs.25,{}OO/W towards
':'s.l,o"sst..of alnwenities of life, Rs.-40,000,/– towards future medical
efrolenlses and replacement of artificial limb, In all, the
at»
.34-
claimant wouid be entitied to a sum of RS.43r,22,2OO/- with
interest @6% on the enhanced compensation as against the
sum of Rs.1,28,840/~ awarded by the Tribunai.
40. We set aside the direction of the
regard to payment of compensation by the”_in”s..i}re:d’»and”yye’
direct the amount of compensaVtiion”toVRae-3 the
insurance cczmpany within a T._oeriod’..oi’-._si:< w'.€iyei<s "fro*fn"vthe.
date of receipt of copy of this
4}. Out of the'aymounjtoftc'o.ij'ht5'e-hsation" ayvarded, we
direct 70% amount withp'ro_po.rtViriirzateiin't:-erwest to be kept in
Fixed of five years, but the
baiancevvihannoant' ~i3bir'0i3:.:C5'»rt%~onate interest to be {laid over to
the ciai.n}Aant'f A V V
"ii%'Aj3'peaE..ystandsmdiisposed of in terms of this order,
it _ V
1 y – _ Sd/I-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE