Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5901 OF 2008

 HANUMANAGOUDA         ... APPELLANT

VS.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE  CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.   ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-Insurance  

Company.

2. Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a  lorry,  two  persons  died  and  others  received  

injuries.   All  the  thirteen  claim  petitions  were

Page 2

decided by a common judgment dated 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 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.  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 with the Award made against

Page 3

the Insurer in respect of death of Hanumanth and  

held  that  the  Award  was  bad  in  law  because  the  

deceased  was  in  a  clerical  cadre  working  as  a  

Gumasthe accompanying the goods in transit for the  

purpose  of delivery  and as  such he  could not  be  

covered by the clause under which premium was paid  

for covering the risk of the persons employed in  

connection  with  the  operation  of  loading  and  

unloading of the goods.  Against this order passed  

in MFA No.2451 of 2002, the appellant/owner of the  

goods vehicle has preferred this appeal.

4. The  only  issue  requiring  determination  is  whether the clause IMT 17 for which premium was paid  

to the insurer in respect of the concerned lorry  

will cover the deceased Hamumanth or not.

5. For  deciding  the  above  issue,  one  is  simply  required to go through the relevant clause IMT 17 of  

the policy, whose copy has been made available to  

us.  The clause reads thus:

Page 4

“Add:  for  LL  to  persons  employed  in  connection  with  the  operation  and/or  loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17”.  

6. The High Court has clearly fallen in error in  holding that the insurer is not liable in respect of  

death of Hanumanth.  The clause - “persons employed  

in connection with the operation” is clearly over  

and above the coverage provided by the policy to  

“persons  employed  in  connection  with  

loading/unloading  of  motor  vehicle”.  As  Gumasthe,  

the deceased 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  covered  by  the  expression  

“persons employed in connection with operation of  

motor vehicle” The operation of the aforesaid clause  

has  wrongly  been  restricted  and  limited  only  to  

persons  employed  in  connection  with  

loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.

7. In view of the aforesaid error committed by the  High Court, the order under appeal is set aside and

Page 5

the order of the Tribunal is restored.  As a result,  

the respondent-Insurance Company will be bound by  

the  Award  made  by  the  Tribunal  for  paying  

compensation  to  the  claimants  for  the  death  of  

Hanumath as per orders of the Tribunal. The dues of  

compensation  along  with  due  interest  should  be  

deposited by the respondent Insurance Company within  

eight weeks with the Tribunal which will permit the  

claimants to withdraw the amount as per order of the  

Tribunal.

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  No costs.

     ……………………………………………C.J.I.   (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………………………J.  (RANJAN GOGOI)

……………………………………………………J.  (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)

New Delhi, January 28, 2014.