PRAVEENBHAI S KHAMBHAYATA Vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD .
Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: C.A. No.-001970-001970 / 2015
Diary number: 30020 / 2014
Advocates: JAYANT MOHAN Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1970 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28265/2014)
Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata ...Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated
16.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
dismissing the appellant’s First Appeal No.282 of 2014
observing that the Insurance Company was not liable to
indemnify him, thereby confirming the order dated 11.11.2013
passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot.
3. The brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are
1
Page 2
as follows:- Proforma respondents 2-4/claimants, namely,
Lalmani Yadav-father, Dashmiya Lalmani yadav-mother and
Janaki alias Babli Ramesh Yadav-wife of the deceased, Ramesh
Lalmani Yadav filed a claim petition before Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot, claiming
compensation for the death of deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav
on 20.05.2002 in the course of his employment. On the fateful
day of 20.05.2002, deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav was
working as a cleaner in the vehicle bearing No.GJ-3V-7785, in
the employment of the appellant and respondent No.5. In the
afternoon at about 12.30 p.m., deceased was filling water in
the radiator of the vehicle when suddenly the bonnet of the
vehicle fell down on the head of the deceased, as a result of
which he fell down and died. Stating that Ramesh Lalmani
Yadav died in the course of his employment, respondents No.2
to 4 filed the claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.4,15,093/- and that appellant and respondent No.1–Insurance
Company are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,15,093/-.
4. Before the Commissioner, both the parties adduced
oral and documentary evidence. Upon consideration of the
records, the Commissioner held that FIR dated 20.05.2002 was
2
Page 3
lodged by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. GJ-3V-7785 in
which it was mentioned that on the fateful day while reversing
the said vehicle he saw deceased putting water in the radiator
of another vehicle bearing no. GJ-3U-5391 and that he slipped
on the bonnet of vehicle, fell on his head and deceased Ramesh
Lalmani Yadav sustained injuries and died. The Labour
Court/Commissioner held that the insurance policy produced
before him was in respect of the vehicle GJ-3V-7785 which was
not involved in the vehicular accident and therefore Insurance
Company–first respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
However, the learned Commissioner held that the appellant and
respondent No.5 being the owner of the vehicle, were jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,25,365/-
along with 10% penalty and annual interest at the rate of 6%.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant–owner of the vehicle
preferred the first appeal in the High Court of Gujarat. Vide
order dated 16.04.2014, the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellant observing that since vehicle No.GJ-3V-
7785 was not involved in the accident and that only vehicle
No.GJ-3U-5391 was involved and since the deceased was
employed as a cleaner was only in vehicle No. GJ-3V-7785, the
3
Page 4
insurance company is not liable to indemnify the appellant for
the accident caused by the vehicle bearing No.GJ-3U-5391. In
this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the said judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both
the vehicles, namely, GJ-3V-7785 and GJ-3U-5391 were duly
owned by the appellant and both the vehicles were insured with
the same insurance company viz. the first respondent–United
India Insurance company and while so, the courts below are not
justified in holding that the first respondent–insurance company
is not liable to indemnify the appellant. It was submitted that
the deceased was an employee of the appellant in vehicle
No.GJ-3V-7785 and died during the course of the employment
and as such, the fact that he was employed in another vehicle
cannot exonerate the insurance company from indemnifying the
appellant. It was further submitted that under Section 147 of
the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, being a beneficial legislation and
both the vehicles being insured with the first respondent, the
courts below erred in observing that the insurance company is
not responsible for any liability even though under Section 147
of the Act. The insurance company is bound to indemnify the
appellant for the loss occurring on account of the death of
4
Page 5
workman in the course of his employment. In support of his
contention, reliance was placed upon Ved Prakash Garg vs.
Premi Devi & Ors.1
7. Learned counsel for the first respondent–insurance
company submitted that the deceased-Ramesh Lalmani Yadav
was employed as a cleaner only in the vehicle GJ-3V-7785 and
since only GJ-3U-5391 was involved in the accident, insurance
company does not have any responsibility to pay any
compensation and to indemnify the insurer and the courts
below rightly exonerated the insurance company from
indemnifying the insurer.
8. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was employed
as a cleaner in vehicle No. GJ-3V-7785 and on perusal of the
statement of Ramlallu D. Patel, the driver of the above-said
vehicle, it emerged that the deceased was actually filling water
in the radiator of the another dumper bearing No. GJ-3U-5391
and met with an accident and died due to the injuries sustained
by him. The same is substantiated by the panchnama of the
scene of the accident. From the written statement filed by fifth
1 (1997) 8 SCC 1
5
Page 6
respondent – Viraj Krishna Techtonics Pvt. Ltd. Vijayrath, it is
apparent that the employer has admitted that the death of
Ramesh Lalmani Yadav was caused while he was filling water in
the radiator of the vehicle bearing No. GJ-3U-5391 owned by
him. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, it is evident
that vehicle GJ-3V-7785 was not involved in the accident.
9. Vehicle No. GJ-3V-7785 was insured with the first
respondent-insurance company under Section 147 of the Act.
The insurance policy of a public service vehicle is deemed to
cover an employee engaged in the said vehicle and the liability
of the insurance company to pay compensation for the death or
injuries sustained by the workman. Payment of compensation
for the death of workman or injuries sustained by the workman
is limited to the liability arising in the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923. Since vehicle No.GJ-3V-7785 was not involved in the
accident, insurance company was not liable to indemnify the
owner of the vehicle towards the compensation payable to his
employee - deceased-cleaner Ramesh Lalmani Yadav under
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
10. As noticed earlier, only the dumper bearing No.GJ-
3U-5391 was involved in the accident. The insurance policy of
6
Page 7
the vehicle No.GJ-3U-5391 was not produced either before the
Commissioner or before the High Court. Insurance policy of the
said vehicle No.GJ-3U-5391 for the period from 13.09.2001 to
12.09.2002 was produced before this Court. The accident was
on 20.05.2002 during which period the vehicle No. GJ-3U-5391
had a valid insurance policy.
11. The point falling for consideration is that even if
the vehicle No. GJ-3U-5391 had a valid insurance policy,
whether the first respondent-insurance company is liable to
indemnify the owner of the vehicle for death of a person who
was employed by him in another vehicle. Insofar as vehicle
dumper No.GJ-3U-5391, admittedly deceased-Ramesh
Lalmani Yadav was not an employee and he was only a third
party. Onbehalf of the appellant, an argument was advanced
that since both the vehicles were insured with the same
insurance company viz., United India Insurance Company and
since Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
legislation, the insurance company ought to have been held
liable to indemnify the insured. As contended by the appellant,
both the vehicles were insured with the respondent-insurance
company and both the vehicles are one and the same.
7
Page 8
Considering the facts of the case, both the vehicles were
parked in the same space and it can be safely stated that the
deceased cleaner was filling the water in the radiator of vehicle
no.GJ-3U-5391 only on the direction of the employer and thus
the cleaner was working in the course of employment. The
High Court rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground
that the insurance policy of vehicle No. GJ-3V-7785 was not
produced but now since the appellant has produced the
insurance policy which covers the vehicle involved in the
accident which provides to indemnify the owner of the vehicle
in case of any accident caused to the workman limited to the
extent of liability under Workmen’s Compensation Act.
12. Both the vehicles were insured with the first
respondent-insurance company and the owner being one and
the same and since the deceased being the cleaner and the
claimants hailing from the lowest strata of society, in our
considered view, in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it is appropriate
to direct the first respondent-insurance company to indemnify
the appellant for the death of deceased.
13. In a situation of this nature for doing complete
8
Page 9
justice between the parties, this Court has always exercised the
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan And Ors.2, this
Court has held as under:-
“13. However, Respondent 1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned situation, although we reject the other contentions of Ms Indu Malhotra, we are inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to direct that the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realise the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act.
14. It is well settled that in a situation of this nature this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 136 thereof can issue suit directions for doing complete justice to the parties”.
14. In Deddappa & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company
Ltd.3, it was observed as under:-
“26. However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, we should, in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct Respondent 1 to pay the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle viz. Respondent 2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct accordingly”.
2 (2007) 7 SCC 56
3 (2008) 2 SCC 595
9
Page 10
15. Labour Court awarded compensation of
Rs.3,25,365/- along with 10% penalty and 6% interest per
annum. As per Section 4-A (3)(a) of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, where any employer commits default in
paying the compensation due under the Act within one month
from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct the
employer to pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 12% per
annum or at such higher rate not exceeding maximum of the
lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the
Central Government. As per Section 4-A (3)(b), in addition to
the amount of arrears and the interest thereon, the
Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay further sum
not exceeding 50% of such amount by way of penalty. The
legal representatives of the deceased employee are thus
entitled to the statutory interest at the rate of 12% and penalty
not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation. The
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has awarded only
6% interest and 10% penalty as against the statutory
entitlement of the dependents of the deceased employee in
terms of Section 4-A(3) of the Act. Having regard to the
10
Page 11
passage of time and in the interest of justice, in our considered
view, statutory rate of penalty i.e. 15% is to be ordered in
addition to the statutory interest payable at the rate of 12%
per annum.
16. The appellant has deposited Rs.3,25,365/- i.e. the
principal amount with the Labour Court/Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation, Rajkot on 18.2.2014. The matter
was listed before the Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6.12.2014
wherein the appellant was directed to deposit the balance
amount. The 1st respondent-insurance company shall deposit
the balance compensation being 15% penalty and the interest
at the rate of 12% after one month from the date when the
compensation amount fell due and also 15% penalty with the
Labour Court/Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit, the
same shall be disbursed to respondents No.2 to 4. The amount
of Rs.3,25,365/- already deposited by the appellant with the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall also be
disbursed to respondents No. 2 to 4 if not already disbursed.
After disbursing the amount to the dependents No.2 to 4, the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Rajkot shall
11
Page 12
submit a report to this Court regarding compliance at an early
date preferably not exceeding four months from today. The 1st
respondent-insurance company shall pay the amount of
Rs.3,25,365/- to the appellant which it has already deposited
towards compensation within a period of six weeks. The
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
appeal is allowed in terms of the above directions. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
...……......................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA)
……........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)
New Delhi; February 17, 2015
12