LexMAMTAJ BI BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
[2010] 10 S . .C.R. 996
MAMTAJ 1 Bl BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS.
v.
UNITED JNDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.
(Civil AppealNo. 7428 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 0
17, 2010 ,
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s. 147, Explanation - Liability
C of insurance company - Incident resulting in death of
workmen - Workmen engaged in unloading food grain from
tractor trailer to underground storage bin - Workers falling into
grocery pit while cleaning the pit for storing food grain - Death
due to asphyxia - Claim petition - Insurance Company held
o liable to pay compensation - High Court setting aside the
liability of Insurance Company - Interference with - Held: Not
called for - Vehicle was not involved in the accident - Death
of workmen cannot said to have any proximate or direct
connection with the vehicle - Compensation.
E
Two workmen were engaged in unloading food grain
from the tractor-trailer to underground storage bin. The
workmen while cleaning the grocery pit for storing food
grain fell into the pit and died due to asphyxia. The legal
representatives of the workmen filed claim petitions. The
F Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowed the
petitions holding the respondent-Insurance Company
liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company filed
appeals. The High Court modified the order passed by
the Commissioner and set aside the liability of the
G Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellants filed the
instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H
996
MAMTAJ Bl BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS. v. UNITED
997
INDIA INSURANCE CO.
HELD: On the facts of the case, the Single Judge of A
the High Court has rightly held that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident and the death of the workmen
by no stretch of imagination can be said to have any
proximate or direct connection with the vehicle; and that
the mere fact that food grain was brought in the insured
B
vehicle to the spot where the workmen died, would not
render the Insurance Company liable in respect of the
death, the cause of which was not proximate to the actual
user of the vehicle. Therefore, no interference is called
for. {Paras 7 and 14] {999-A-B; 1001-G-H]
c
Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More
(1991) 3 sec 530 - distinguished.
Case Law Reference:
(1991) 3 sec 530
Distinguished.
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7428 of 2010.
D
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2005 of the High
E
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 5843 & 5844
of 2003 (WC).
Ajay Kumar M., V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants.
A.K. De, Rajesh Dwivedi, Ashok K. Mahajan for the
F
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and final order
dated 25.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in M.F.A. No.5843/2003 (WC) and M.F.A. No.5844/
2003 (WC).
G
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A
3. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal
are recapitulated as under:
The claimants-respondents in M.F.A. No.5843 of 2003 are
the legal representatives of one Bapusab Nadaf and the
8 claimants-respondents in M.F.A. No.5844 of 2003 are the legal
representatives of Basappa Gurappa Hipparagi, who were
workmen engaged in uploading Maize (foodgrain) from a
tractor-trailer. When Maize was being unloaded from the tractor
to an underground storage bin ('Hagevu'), both the labourers
climbed the grocery pit in order to clean the same for storing
C Maize and while cleaning they fell into the grocery pit. They
shouted from inside that they were suffocating, a rope was
released to them but they did not catch it and they died due to
asphyxia. These facts are not disputed.
0
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the Insurance Company has clear responsibility for this accident
and the Insurance Company is liable and under an obligation
to pay compensation to the appellants. This contention is
rebutted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
E According to him, the vehicle in question was not involved in
the accident. He further submitted that there has been no
proximity or direct connection with the death of the workmen
with the vehicle in any manner. At the time of the accident the
vehicle in question was not in operation.
F
5. The claim petitions filed by the appellants before the
CommissioneExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.