Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Thimmawwa on 23 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: I(1989)ACC51, ILR1989KAR1303, 1988(2)KARLJ378
JUDGMENT
Venkatachala, J
1. Question of insurer's legal liability under a motor policy to indemnify the insured for risks of coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading of a trailer attached to a tractor, while they were carried in the trailer, arises for decision in these appeals.
2. The common appellant in these appeals had issued a motor policy in respect of a tractor, to which a trailer was attached, in favour of its owner (Rasul Patel), a common respondent in these appeals. The said motor policy had covered the risks of five coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading the said trailer in lieu of the special premium received by the insurer at the rate of Rs. 8/- per cooli. Consequently, Endorsement 16, which concerns the legal liability to persons employed in connection with loading and/or unloading of a motor vehicle, was attached to the said policy. The said tractor, to which the trailer was attached, while carrying more than five coolies in the trailer along with the goods (size-stones) loaded in it for the purpose of unloading them, met with an accident, which caused the capsizing of the trailer. As a result of that accident, out of the coolies carried in the trailer, three of them died, while more than two of them sustained bodily injuries. The legal representatives of each of the coolies so died and the injured persons filed petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga ('Claims Tribunal') claiming compensation from the owner of the tractor-trailer as also its insurer for the deaths as also bodily injuries sustained by some of the coolies. At the conclusion of the common enquiry held by the Claims Tribunal on the said claims, the insurer filed a memo to the effect that the insurer's legal liability to coolies employed in connection with the loading and/unloading of the trailer be restricted to deaths or bodily injuries of five of them. On consideration of the material, which became available in the enquiry, and after hearing the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, the Claims Tribunal rendered a common Judgment and separate awards making the owner of the tractor-trailer liable for payment of compensation for the deaths of the coolies as also the bodily injuries suffered by the coolies in the said accident. By the said common Judgment and five awards made pursuant thereto, the insurer was directed to indemnify the liability of the owner of the tractor-trailer respecting deaths of three coolies and bodily injuries of two coolies having regard to the liability undertaken by it under the motor policy along with Endorsement 16 issued in his favour. It is the said common Judgment and five separate awards which are appealed against in the present appeals.
3. Sri Sowriraj's contention in those appeals was that the Judgment and awards of the Claims Tribunal, which direct the insurer to indemnify the owner of the tractor-trailer (insured) for his liability for the deaths of three coolies and bodily injuries of two coolies, was unwarranted having regard to the motor policy issued along with Endorsement 16. According to him, the legal liability of the insurer to coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading the trailer could arise only if they died or were injured while actually loading and/or unloading the trailer and not when they were carried in the trailer by the tractor for the purpose of loading and/or unloading. We find it difficult to accept the said contention for the reasons which we shall presently state.
4. The motor policy issued to the insured, under which the liability of the insurer for risks of coolies has to be determined, provides thus:
"The Company hereby agrees subject to the terms and conditions conditioned herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon that in respect of accident, loss or damage at any time during the period of insurance stated in the Schedule, the Company will indemnify the insured as hereinafter provided."
Schedule to premium of the said policy shows that additional premium of Rs. 40/- is paid to cover the risks of coolies as per Endorsement 16 issued along with the policy. Material portion of that Endorsement reads:
"In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary the Company shall indemnify the insured against his legal liability under:
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of that Act prior to the date of this Endorsement, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, or at Common Law in respect of personal injury to any.....person employed in loading and/or unloading whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with any motor vehicle and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred...."
5. The policy itself invites the insured's attention to the following:
"The insured is not indemnified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with the Schedule. Any payment made by the Company by reason of wider terms appearing in the Certificate in order to comply with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is recoverable from the insured."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The above provisions of the Policy, its Schedule and the Endorsement, if read as a whole, make it clear that the insurer (the Company) has undertaken to indemnify the insured's legal liability for the risks of coolies employed by him in connection with loading and/or unloading the motor vehicle arising in the course of its use. Hence, it is difficult to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the insurer that risks of coolies agreed to be covered under the policy should be confined to their risks which may arise when they are actually loading and/or unloading the trailer and not when the vehicle (tractor-trailer) was in the course of its use for purposes of loading and/or unloading the trailer. Besides, if such contention is accepted, the very purpose of the policy covering the risks of coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading the tractor-trailer will be defeated, in that, risks of coolies in connection with loading and/or unloading a motor vehicle, except when it is in use, would be rare. A motor policy -- a document pertaining to a contract, it is needless to point out, cannot be interpreted so as" to restrict its operation as would defeat the very purpose for which it had been taken. We are, therefore, not left in doubt that the policy under consideration has been rightly interpreted by the Claims Tribunal so as to make the insurer liable to indemnify the insured against the latter's legal liability to coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading the tractor-trailer while they were carried in the tractor-trailer for the purpose of its loading and/or unloading.
7. In the result, we dismiss these appeals without admitting them.