Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Sattar And Ors. vs Mehboob And Ors. on 19 November, 1985
Equivalent citations: AIR1986P&H352, AIR 1986 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 352, (1986) 89 PUN LR 567
JUDGMENT
1. Two labourers--Abdul Jabar and Sri Ram--were killed when the truck RJE-3347, they were travelling in suddenly went off the road and turned turtle. This happened on June 11,1979 on the Delhi Jaipur Road. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of truck-driver. A sum of Rs.19.000/- was awarded as compensation to the father and widow of Abdul Jabar deceased and Rs.9,500/- to the father of Sri Ram deceased. The claim in appeal now is for enhanced compensation.
2. The evidence on record would show that Abdul Jabar de ceased was about 19 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 20 years old widow and his father who was 54 years of age. Both these persons were dependant upon him. Abdul Jabar worded as a labourer mainly in loading and unloading of trucks. No exception can be taken to the Tribunal assessing the income of both the deceased at Rs.33/- per month. Applying here the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979) 81 Pun LR 1: (AIR 1979 P & H 50), the claimants must indeed be held entitled to the amount claimed that is Rs. 40,000/-.
3. Turning to the case of Sri Ram deceased, the evidence shows that he was 32 years of age at the time of this accident. the claimant in this case is his 58 years old blind father. It was the deceased who had been supporting and looking after him. considering the loss that the claimant has suffered on account of the death of his deceased son as also his age and the other relevant factors as laid down in Lachhman Singh's case (supra), the compensation to the father deserves to be enhanced enhanced to Rs.25,000/-
4. The main controversy raised in appeal here was with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company. The contention of Mr. L. M. Suri, in this behalf being that both Abdul Jabar and Sri Ram were travelling on the ill-fated truck merely as gratuitous passengers and were thus not convered by the policy of insurance and consequently no liability in respect of their deaths could be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
5. According to the claimants, the deceased had been engaged by the truck-driver and he owner of the goods for loading and unloading of bags and for taking care of them during the journey and they were thus both working under the instructions of and contract with the truck-driver and owner of the goods. This was, however, denied by the respondents
6. It was the testimony of R. W. 2 Kewal Ram, the truck-owner that he had never authorised the truck driver to engage labour for loading or unloading the truck or to carry any labourers on the truck from one place to another. The truck-driver R. W. 1 supported this by deposing that he had no authority on behalf of the truck-owner to engage any labourer nor had he employed the deceased for this purpose. He stated that it was Naranjan Lal the owner of the goods who had engaged this labour and it w as he who had allowed Abdul Jabar and Sri Ram to travel on the truck on his own responsibility. He in fact allow the deceased to board the truck. It been raised in this case nor was any such suggestion made to the witnesses examined by the claimants.
7. In order to establish that the deceased was on the truck under a contract of employment, the claimants examined P.W. 6 Madan Lal son of the truck-owner who deposed that there was no permanent labour on the truck. Labour for loading and unloading of truck was employed either by the truck-driver or the owner of the goods or both. P.W. 11 Banwal deposed that he was also one of the persons who helped load the ill-fated truck and both the deceased had been employed for this purpose by the owner of the goods and then taken in the truck for unloading it. Next there is the testimony of A. W. 12 Abdul Sattar claimant who deposed that the deceased had been employed for loading and unloading of bags by the truck-driver and their labour charges wee paid by the owner of the bags at the asking of the truck-driver.
8. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, it would be apparent that the deceased were working under a contract of employment for loading and unloading of goods and were, for this purpose on the truck when it met with the accident. This beings so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the protection of S.(95)(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was available to them too. It would be relevant to advert here to the judgment of the Full Bench of our Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdev Kaur 1967 ACJ 158: (AIR 1967 P & H 486), where it was held that the expression "contract of employment "in clause (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, refers not only to a contract of employment, with the insured, but also to a contract of employment of a person who is on the insured vehicle for sufficient or business reasons and has taken a contract of employment in pursuance of which he is on the vehicle. He need not, therefore, be under a contract of employment with the insured so long as he was on the insured vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of his contract of employment. In other words, where because of his contract of employment he was on the vehicle. this was later followed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Devi, AIR 1984 Orissa 197. A similar vies was also taken in Abdul Razak v. Smt. Sharifunnisan AIR 1983 All 400.
9. The judgment from which counsel for the Insurance of Company sought support, namely; Sucha Singh v. Setha Ram, 1984 A.C. J. 586 (P & H), is clearly distinguishable and is thus of no avail, in that, a specific finding was recorded there that the deceased was not on the truck under any contract of employment and the Insurance Company was, therefore, not liable.
10. It follow that all the respondents including the respondent-Insurance Company must be held to be jointly and severally liable for the compensation payable in the case
11. The compensation, as mentioned earlier is hereby enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- in the case of Abdul Jabar deceased and Rs. 25,000/- in the case of the other deceased Sri Ram. Out of the amount awarded sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be payable to the father of Abdul Jabar deceased and the balance to his widow.
12. The claimants shall, in additions, be entitled to interest on the amount awarded at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum form the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded.
13. in the result, both appeals are here by accepted with costs while the cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. Counsel fee Rs.500/- (One set only).
14. Appeals accepted.