LexSANJEEV KUMAR SAMRAT versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 13 S.C.R. 174 SANJEEV KUMAR SAMRAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8925 of 2012 etc.) DECEMBER 11, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 147 and 167 - Insured goods vehicle - Hired - Accident of the vehicle - Causing C death of the hirer and its two employees - Claim for compensation - Tribunal holding that Insurance company was liable to pay the compensation - High Court holding that Insurance company was liable only in respect of the hirer and not to its employees - On appeal, held: Order of High Court D is correct - The statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, covered under Workmen's Compensation Act and not any other kind of employee - Workman's Compensation Act, 1923. E The appellant-owner of a goods vehicle, insured the vehicle with the respondent-Insurance Company. The vehicle was hired for carrying goods. When the hirer alongwith his two labourers was going with the goods, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of the hirer and the two labourers. F The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petitions. The Insurance Company took the stand that it was not liable to indemnify the labourers employed by the hirer. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that G Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the legal heirs of the three deceased. In appeal, Single Jude of High Court held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the legal representatives of the hirer, but not to his employees. Since the Insurance Company H 174 SANJEEV KUMAR SAMRAT v. NATIONAL 175 INSURANCE CO. LTD. had already deposited the amount of compensation, the A Court held that the company was entitle to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle as regards the compensation amount for the two deceased employees. Dismissing the appeals, the Court 8 HELD: 1.1 As per Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the policy is required to cover a person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried In the vehicle. An owner of the C goods or his authorised agent is covered under the policy. That is the statutory requirement. It does not cover any passenger. [Para 19] [186-C-D] 1.2 The insurer's liability as regards employee is o restricted to the compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The categories of employees which have been enumerated in the sub· clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso (i) to Section 147(1) are the driver of a vehicle, or the conductor of the vehicle, E If it is a public service vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle. [Para 19] [186-C-G] 1.3 It is the settled principle of law that the liability of an Insurer for payment of compensation either could be F statutory or contractual. On a reading of the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, it is demonstrable that the insurer is required to cover the risk of certain categories of employees of the insured stated therein. The Insurance company Is not under statutory obligation to G cover all kinds of employees of the insurer as the statute does not show command. That apart, the liability of the insurer in respect of the said covered category of employees is limited to the extent of the liability that arises H 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R. A under the 1923 Act. There is also a stipulation in Section 147 that the owner of the vehicle is free to secure a policy of insurance providing wider coverage. In that event, the liability would travel beyond the requirement of Section 147 of the Act, regard being had to its contractual nature. a But, a pregnant one, the amount of premium would be different. [Para 20] [187-B-E] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Ors. (2003) 2 sec 339: 2003 (1) SCR 537 - relied on. C Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 1: 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 250 - referred to. 1.4 On an apposite reading of Sections 147 and 167, the intendment of the Legislature, is to cover the injury 0 to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. A policy is not required to cover the liability of the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.