The Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Monday laid down {that a} loading and unloading employee of the proprietor of a Tipper Lorry would even be coated below the ambit of courses of workers talked about below clause (c) of the primary proviso to Part 147(1) of the Motor Autos Act, 1988 (‘MV Act, 1988’).
Part 147 of MV Act lays down the necessities of insurance policies and the bounds of legal responsibility.
Clause (c) to proviso (i) states {that a} coverage shall not be required to cowl legal responsibility in respect of the dying, arising out of and in the midst of his employment, of the worker of an individual insured by the coverage or in respect of bodily harm sustained by such an worker arising out of and in the midst of his employment aside from a legal responsibility arising below the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the dying of, or bodily harm to, any such worker in case of a items carriage being carried by a automobile.
“…loading and unloading of the products transported in a items carriage is to be handled as half and parcel of the aim for which the products carriage is meant to. Seen from the above angle, it’s to be held that loading and unloading of the products in a items carriage is inseparably related with the utilization of a items carriage. Within the above circumstances, until and till the individuals loading and unloading the products in a items carriage are additionally coated below clause (c) of the primary proviso to Part 147(1) of the MV Act, the aim of the aforesaid provision is not going to be served, in its true spirit,” Justice C. Pratheep Kumar noticed.
The first respondent herein, who was a loading and unloading employee in a tipper lorry owned by the 2nd respondent suffered accidents when a coconut tree he tried to load onto the lorry fell on him. He thus approached the Workers Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation.
The appellant, United India Insurance coverage Firm admitted the coverage, however disputed legal responsibility on the bottom that the coverage didn’t cowl the danger of loading and unloading employee within the tipper lorry. The Workers Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- together with easy curiosity on the fee of 12%, and Rs.2,55,962/- in direction of remedy expense.
The current enchantment was most well-liked by the appellant Insurance coverage Firm on being aggrieved by the afore order.
The appellant contended that because the 1st respondent was not the driving force, conductor nor cleaner of the tipper lorry, he wouldn’t be entitled to get any compensation, and prayed for the Tribunal’s order to be put aside.
The counsel for the first respondent nonetheless disputed the identical, and submitted that clause (c) of the primary proviso to Part 147 (1) of M.V. Act coated the danger of a loading and unloading employee, as nicely.
The Courtroom noticed {that a} literal which means of the phrases “any particular person carried in a items carriage”, as offered in clause (c) of the primary proviso to Part 147((1) of the MV Act would point out that it covers solely individuals travelling within the items carriage.
Nevertheless, the Courtroom proceeded to notice that the automobile in query, being a tipper lorry is meant to hold items.
“Provided that the products are loaded into the products carriage, it may be transported from one place to a different. When it reaches the vacation spot, the products are to be unloaded additionally,” it mentioned, including that loading and unloading of products transported in a items carriage would additionally must be handled as a part of the aim for which the products carriage is meant.
On this foundation, the Courtroom held the first respondent, who had been working as a loading and unloading worker of the second respondent on the time of the accident would additionally come inside the purview of clause (c) of the primary proviso to Part 147(1) of the MV Act.
“I don’t discover any illegality or irregularity within the impugned order handed by the Industrial Tribunal and Workers Compensation Commissioner and as such, this enchantment is liable to be dismissed,” it mentioned whereas dismissing the enchantment.
Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates John Joseph Vettikad, and C. Joseph Johny
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Anil Kumar Okay.P., and V.A. Vinod
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
Case Title: United India Insurance coverage Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razaque O.V. & Anr.
Case Quantity: MFA (ECC) NO. 76 OF 2020
Click on HereTo Learn/Obtain The Judgment
