HANUMANAGOUDAversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

                    [2014] 1 S.C.R. 853


                   HANUMANAGOUDA                              A
                             v.
   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.
            (Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2008)
                    JANUARY 28, 2014                          B
      [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
               SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

    MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
                                                              c
     Fatal accident-Liability of insurer - Deceased as
'Gumasthe' accompanying the goods in Jorry - Held: The
relevant clause in the policy, i.e. "persons employed in
connection with the operation", is clearly over and above the
coverage provided by the policy to "persons employed in D
connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle" - The
deceased, as Gumasthe, was accompanying the goods in
transit for the purpose of delivery of goods and, as such, would
be covered by the expression "persons employed in
connection with operation of motor vehicle" - Insurance E
Company wi/I be bound by tf]e award and liable to pay
compensation to claimants                    ·

     In an appeal filed against the order of the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal holding the owner-cum-driver
of the vehicle and the insurer jointly and severally liable, F
the High Court held that the award made against the
Insurer in respect of the deceased was bad in law·
because the deceased working as 'Gumasthe'
accompanying the goods, could not be covered by the
clause under which premium was paid for covering the G
risk of the persons employed in connection with the
operation of loading and unloading of the goods.
    The question for consideration before the Court
                        853                                   H ·
      854      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 1 S.C.R.


  A was: whether clause IMT 17 for which premium was paid
    to the insurer in respect of the lorry would cover the
    deceased or not.

            Allowing the appeal, the Court
  B
         HELD: 1.1. The High Court has clearly fallen in error
    in holding that the insurer is not liable in respect of death
    of the deceased. The clause, "persons employed in
    connection with the operation" is clearly over and above
    the coverage provided by the policy to "persons
  C employed in connection with loading/unloading of motor
    vehicle". The deceased, as 'Gumasthe', 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
  D covered by the expression "persons employed in
    connection with operation of motor vehicle". The
    operation of the clause has wrongly been restricted and
    limited only to persons employed in connection with
    loading/unloading of the motor vehicle. The respondent-
. E Insurance Company will be bound by the award and
    liable to pay compensation as per orders of the Tribunal.
    [para 6-7] [856-C-E-G]

         1.2. The order impugned is set aside and the order
  F of the Tribunal restored. The dues of compensation along
    with interest shall be deposited by the respondent
    Insurance Company with the Tribunal. [para 7] [856-G]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
      5901 of 2008.
  G
          From the Judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the
      High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA Nos. 2451,2452
      and 2454 of 2002.
            M. Gireesh Kumar, S.K. Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Vijay
  H
 HANUMANAGOUDA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                    855
               CO. LTD.

Kumar, for the Appellant.                                           A
    M.K. Dua for the Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance          8
Company.
      2. Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a lorry, two
persons died and others received injuries. All the thirteen claim
petitions were decided by a common judgment dated                   c
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            D
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.        E
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 F
with the Award made against 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 good,s 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 G
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        H
      856       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


  A 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
  8 to go through the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose
    copy has been made available to us. The clause reads thus:
                  "Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with
            the operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT
            17".
  c       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
  D 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
. E 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 the order of the
  F 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
  G 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.
  H R.P.                                             Appeal allowed.