HANUMANAGOUDA versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 28-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 853 
HANUMANAGOUDA 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2008) 
JANUARY 28, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
A 
B 
c 
Fatal accident-Liability of insurer - Deceased as 
'Gumasthe' accompanying the goods in Jorry - Held: The 
relevant clause in the policy, i.e. "persons employed in 
connection with the operation", is clearly over and above the 
coverage provided by the policy to "persons employed in 
D 
connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle" -
The 
deceased, as Gumasthe, was accompanying the goods in 
transit for the purpose of delivery of goods and, as such, would 
be covered by the expression "persons employed in 
connection with operation of motor vehicle" -
Insurance 
E 
Company wi/I be bound by tf]e award and liable to pay 
compensation to claimants 
· 
In an appeal filed against the order of the Motor 
Accidents Claim Tribunal holding the owner-cum-driver 
of the vehicle and the insurer jointly and severally liable, 
F 
the High Court held that the award made against the 
Insurer in respect of the deceased was bad in law· 
because the deceased working as 'Gumasthe' 
accompanying the goods, could not be covered by the 
clause under which premium was paid for covering the G 
risk of the persons employed in connection with the 
operation of loading and unloading of the goods. 
The question for consideration before the Court 
853 
H · 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 1 S.C.R. 
A was: whether clause IMT 17 for which premium was paid 
to the insurer in respect of the lorry would cover the 
deceased or not. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has clearly fallen in error 
in holding that the insurer is not liable in respect of death 
of the deceased. The clause, "persons employed in 
connection with the operation" is clearly over and above 
the coverage provided by the policy to "persons 
C employed in connection with loading/unloading of motor 
vehicle". The 
deceased, as 
'Gumasthe', was 
accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of 
delivery of goods. This has been accepted by the High 
Court. Obviously, as 'Gumasthe', the deceased would be 
D covered by the expression "persons employed in 
connection with operation of motor vehicle". The 
operation of the clause has wrongly been restricted and 
limited only to persons employed in connection with 
. E 
loading/unloading of the motor vehicle. The respondent-
Insurance Company will be bound by the award and 
liable to pay compensation as per orders of the Tribunal. 
[para 6-7] [856-C-E-G] 
1.2. The order impugned is set aside and the order 
F of the Tribunal restored. The dues of compensation along 
with interest shall be deposited by the respondent 
Insurance Company with the Tribunal. [para 7] [856-G] 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5901 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA Nos. 2451,2452 
and 2454 of 2002. 
M. Gireesh Kumar, S.K. Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Vijay 
HANUMANAGOUDA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 855 
CO. LTD. 
Kumar, for the Appellant. 
M.K. Dua for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance 
8 
Company. 
2. Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a lorry, two 
persons died and others received injuries. All the thirteen claim 
petitions were decided by a common judgment dated c 
21.01.2002 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal 
(hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') presided by the 
Principal District Judge at Raichur (Karnataka). This appeal 
relates only to claim filed by dependents and legal 
representatives of deceased Hanumanth which included his 
D 
widow Smt. Mariyamma and three minor children, who are 
respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. The Tribunal allowed their 
claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled for 
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the 
lorry, the appellant and also from respondent-Insurance 
Company as they were held responsible jointly and severally. 
E 
The claim was allowed with 6% interest from the date of claim 
petition till its realization with costs fixed at Rs.200/-. 
3. In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High 
Court by the order under Appeal dated 17.10.2005 interfered
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.