LexRAM CHANDRA versus REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 14 S.C.R. 1 RAM CHANDRA v. REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 8725 of 2012) AUGUST 2, 2013 ' . [G.S. SINGHVI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A B Compensation - Liability to pay compensation - In respect of death or bodily injury to an employee :.:. In a motor C accident - Whether to be estricted to Workmenls Compensation Act or would be also under Motor Vehicles Act - Held: The liability cannot be restricted under Workmen's Compensation Act and it can be expanded under Motor Vehicles Act, provided the contractual document (policy of D insurance) incorporates such clause regarding the premium to be paid taking into account the nature of the policy- Hence claimant is entitled to amount of compensation over and above Worl<inen's Compensation Act, subject to the rider that the statutory liability cannot be more thari what is required E under the statute u/s. 95 of Motor Vehicles Act - Worl<men's Compensation Act, 1923 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The question for consideration in the present appeal was, when the labourer/employee is injured during the course of employment due to negligence of the driver of F the vehicle, which caused the accident, whether the compensation could be limited to the amount admissible under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or compensation would also be payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. G .· . Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The liability to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to an employee should not be 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A restricted to that under the Workmen's Compensation Act but should be more or unlimited. However, the . · determination would depend whether a policy has been taken by the vehicle owner by making payment of extra premium and whether the policy also contains a clause B to that effect. [Para 17] [16-G-H] National Insurance Company vs. Prembai Patel and Ors, (2005) 6 SCC 172: 2005 (3) SCR 655; New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 278: 2002 (1) SCR 298; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti C Bai and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 539: 1995 (1) SCR 871; Amrit Lal Sood vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 744: 1998 (2) SCR 284 - relied on. 2. The High Court was not correct in holding that the 0 claimant/appellant was not entitled to any compensation over and above the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and hence the direction issued by the High Court that the appellant/insurance company, respondent herein, will be liable to pay only Rs. 320911- and the balance will have to be shouldered by the E insured/owner of the vehicle is fit to be struck down as invalid as the High Court had failed to examine the nature and clauses of the policy which was not produced even before the Tribunal. [Para 19] [17-0-E] F 3. The claimant/appellant is entitlecl to the amount of compensation over and above the Workmen's Compensation Act. The rider no doubt is that the statutory liabilitY cannot be more than what is required · under the statute under Section 95' of the Motor Vehicles Act which cannot bind the parties or prohibit them from G contracting or creating unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk and the insured is bound by the terms of the contract specified. in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as.the case may be. [Para 20] H [17-F-H] RAMCHANDRA v. REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED 3 INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 4. In the instant matter insofar as the entitlement of A the claimant to the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act is concerned, the right of the claimant is not affected. However, the respondent/insurance company had filed an appeal in the High Court contending that the order of the Tribunal could not be sustained in law to the extent of B liability over and above the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and on this point the contention of the appellant/company has been accepted by the High Court overlooking the more important fact that the Respondent insurer company had neither produced the policy of c insurance before the High Court nor led any evidence to establish that as per terms and conditions of policy extra premium had not been paid. [Para 21) [18-C-E) 5. The High Court, however, further overlooked that the apportionment of the amount of compensation D between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.