Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sunita Devi Daughter Of Onkar Wife ... on 30 September, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.511 of 1997 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
X Obj. No.34-CII of 1999 in/and
FAO No.511 of 1997
Date of Decision. 30.09.2010
United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional
Manager, Chandigarh
......Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita Devi daughter of Onkar wife of Suresh Kumar and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate
for the cross-objectors.
Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the workman that died was one of persons going for political rally in a goods carriage. The contention of the insurance company was that a passenger in a goods carriage is not required to be covered for risk and therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1, the insurance company will not be liable. It was attempted to be proved at the FAO No.511 of 1997 -2- time of trial that the person that died was a workman under the employer and was travelling in the vehicle. Even a workman, who could travel in a goods carriage must be a person who shall be entitled to a cover under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The right of enforcement against the employer and the insurer will arise only in situations where the entitlement is provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That shall be either when the workman is in the course of employment and the injury or death has resulted out of employment. If a goods carriage cannot be used and a workman cannot be said to be in the course of employment when he is going to a political rally, then the mere status of the deceased as a workman under the employer cannot provide to him a protection which Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages. There is no such law, in fact, for such a proposition will be against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Rani's case (supra).
2. The award passed by the Tribunal against the insurer is, therefore, set aside. Since the Tribunal has found that the accident has arisen on account of negligence of the driver of the truck, the owner is vicariously liable for the consequence of the accident and hence liable also to satisfy the claim awarded by the Tribunal. The right of enforcement for the claimants will, therefore, survive only against the owner insured and not against the insurer.
3. There is a claim for enhancement by cross objections by the claimants, who were widow and the parents. The widow gave evidence to the effect that her husband was being paid Rs.1500/- FAO No.511 of 1997 -3- per month by his employer but the employer-owner of the vehicle did not gave any evidence to refute the same. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.1200/- and determined the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant however points out that the deceased claimed to be an employee with the M/s K.C. Textile Mills Limited and the owner of the truck has been shown as Rajiv Kumar and it does not refer to M/s K.C. Textile Mills Limited at all. The evidence appears to be that the 2nd respondent has been shown to be the owner of the truck and the Tribunal has reasoned that the deceased was also an employee of M/s K.C. Textile Mills limited. It has assumed the owner of the truck to be also the proprietor of the Textile Mill. I do not see the nexus but I do not want to make an issue out of the same having regard to the fact that it is only for consideration whether the non-examination of the 2nd respondent assumed any significance or not. In a case where a particular income was alleged by the widow and there is not contra evidence given by a person, who was said to be the employee that ought to be sufficient justification to uphold the claim in the manner in which it was made. I would, therefore, take the income to be Rs.1500/-, provide for 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.12,000/-. He was a person aged 22, I would, therefore, take a multiplier of 18 and determine Rs.2,16,000/- as the loss of dependence. I would provide to wife Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and a further amount of Rs.4500/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.2,25,500/-. The FAO No.511 of 1997 -4- Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,600/- and the amount in excess of what has already been awarded shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability will be cast on the owner/insured namely 2nd respondent before the Tribunal.
4. Cross Objections are allowed and the appeal filed by the insurance company is also allowed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2010 Pankaj*