MAMTAJ BI BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.

                       [2010] 10 S..C.R. 996


             MAMTAJ 1 Bl BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS.
                               v.
             UNITED JNDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.
                 (Civil AppealNo. 7428 of 2010)
                                       1
                      SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 ,
B
       [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                    SHARMA, JJ.]

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s. 147, Explanation - Liability
C of insurance company - Incident resulting in death of
  workmen - Workmen engaged in unloading food grain from
  tractor trailer to underground storage bin - Workers falling into
  grocery pit while cleaning the pit for storing food grain - Death
  due to asphyxia - Claim petition - Insurance Company held
o liable to pay compensation - High Court setting aside the
  liability of Insurance Company - Interference with - Held: Not
  called for - Vehicle was not involved in the accident - Death
  of workmen cannot said to have any proximate or direct
  connection with the vehicle - Compensation.
E      Two workmen were engaged in unloading food grain
  from the tractor-trailer to underground storage bin. The
  workmen while cleaning the grocery pit for storing food
  grain fell into the pit and died due to asphyxia. The legal
  representatives of the workmen filed claim petitions. The
F Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowed the
  petitions holding the respondent-Insurance Company
  liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company filed
  appeals. The High Court modified the order passed by
  the Commissioner and set aside the liability of the
G Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellants filed the
  instant appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

H                                996
 MAMTAJ Bl BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS. v. UNITED                997
            INDIA INSURANCE CO.

     HELD: On the facts of the case, the Single Judge of        A
the High Court has rightly held that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident and the death of the workmen
by no stretch of imagination can be said to have any
proximate or direct connection with the vehicle; and that
the mere fact that food grain was brought in the insured        B
vehicle to the spot where the workmen died, would not
render the Insurance Company liable in respect of the
death, the cause of which was not proximate to the actual
user of the vehicle. Therefore, no interference is called
for. {Paras 7 and 14] {999-A-B; 1001-G-H]                       c
    Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More
(1991) 3 sec 530 - distinguished.
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                D
    (1991) 3 sec 530            Distinguished.      Para 9
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7428 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2005 of the High      E
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 5843 & 5844
of 2003 (WC).

    Ajay Kumar M., V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants.

   A.K. De, Rajesh Dwivedi, Ashok K. Mahajan for the            F
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                G
    2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and final order
dated 25.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in M.F.A. No.5843/2003 (WC) and M.F.A. No.5844/
2003 (WC).
                                                                H
    998     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A        3. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal
    are recapitulated as under:
       The claimants-respondents in M.F.A. No.5843 of 2003 are
  the legal representatives of one Bapusab Nadaf and the
  claimants-respondents in M.F.A. No.5844 of 2003 are the legal
8 representatives of Basappa Gurappa Hipparagi, who were
  workmen engaged in uploading Maize (foodgrain) from a
  tractor-trailer. When Maize was being unloaded from the tractor
  to an underground storage bin ('Hagevu'), both the labourers
  climbed the grocery pit in order to clean the same for storing
C Maize and while cleaning they fell into the grocery pit. They
  shouted from inside that they were suffocating, a rope was
  released to them but they did not catch it and they died due to
  asphyxia. These facts are not disputed.
       4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
0
  the Insurance Company has clear responsibility for this accident
  and the Insurance Company is liable and under an obligation
  to pay compensation to the appellants. This contention is
  rebutted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
E According to him, the vehicle in question was not involved in
  the accident. He further submitted that there has been no
  proximity or direct connection with the death of the workmen
  with the vehicle in any manner. At the time of the accident the
  vehicle in question was not in operation.

F        5. The claim petitions filed by the appellants before the
    Commissioner for Workmen's Compensa1ion, Bizapur, were
    allowed and the Commissioner vide its judgment dated 24th
    July, 2003, found the Insurance Company liable to pay
    compensation to the appellan~.
G      6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Insurance Company
  preferred in M.F.A. No.5843/2003 and M.F.A. No.5844/2003
  before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High
  Court allowed the appeals and modified the order passed by
  the Commissioner and the liability of the Insurance Company
H was set aside. However, the appellants were at liberty to
 MAMTAJ Bl BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS. v. UNITED                   999
 INDIA INSURANCE CO. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

recover the amount of compensation from the employer.               A
     7. According to the reasoning of the High Court, the
vehicle was not involved in the accident and the death of the
workmen by no stretch of imagination can be said to have any
proximate or direct connection with the vehicle. The High Court     B
also observed that the mere fact that Maize was brought to the
spot where the workmen had died in the insured vehicle, would
not render the Insurance Company liable in respect of the death,
the cause of which was not proximate to the actual user of the
vehicle.
     8. In the present case, the use of the vehicle was not even
claimed as being a ground on which the liability is said to be
fastened on the Insurance Company.
      9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shivaji Dayanu     D
Patil and Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530.
Brief facts of that case are that a collision between a petrol
tanker and a truck took place on a National Highway at about
3.00 a.m. as a result of which the tanker went off the road and
fell on its left side at .a distance
                                 I
                                      of about 20 feet from the     E
Highway. Due to overturning of the tanker, the petrol contained
in it leaked out and collected nearby. At about 7.15 a.m. an
explosion took place in the tanker causing burn injuries to those
assembled near it including the respondent's son who later
succumbed to the injuries. The facts of this case are entirely      F
different and are not applicable to the present case. In this
case, the petrol tanker was directly involved in the accident and
that all the workmen were directly connected with the accident.
This case does not help the appellants in any manner.
     10. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed         G
reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High
Court delivered on 24th February, 2006 in M.F.A. No.1870/2005
(WC). In that case, the workman who was working as a loader,
went in the lorry and loaded the lorry with stones and thereafter
he was required to unload the same close to the Crusher near        H
    1000    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A the quarry along with other loaders. At about 2.30 p.m. in the
  afternoon, the deceased workman got down from the lorry in
  order to unload the stones along with other loaders and when
  they opened the lock at the hind portion of the lorry, the entire
  load of stones in the lorry fell on him, as a result of which he
B sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
  In this case, the vehicle was directly involved in the unfortunate
  accident.
       11. Both the above-mentioned cases relied on by the
  learned counsel for the appellants are of no avail to him. These
C cases do not help the appellants in any manner.
         12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
    placed reliance on the Explanation to Section 147(1) of the
    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:
D       "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1)
        In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter,
        a policy of insurance must be a policy which-
        (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and

E       (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in
        the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-
        (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in
        respect of of the death of or bodily injury to any person,
        including owner of the goods or his authorised
F       representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any
        property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use
        of the vehicle in a public place;
        (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger
        of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the
G
        use of the vehicle in a public place;
        Provided that a policy shall not be required-
        (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of
        and in the course of his employment, of the employee of
H
 MAMTAJ Bl BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS. v. UNITED 1001
 INDIA INSURANCE CO. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

       a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury     A
       sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the
       course of his employment other than a liability arising
       under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of
       1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such
       employee-                                                         B
       (a) engaged ih driving the vehicle, or
       (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor
       of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
       (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle,      C
       or
       (ii) to cover any contractual liability.
       Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
       declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or      D
       damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed
       to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use
       of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the
       person who is dead or injured or the property which is
       damaged was not in a public place at the time of the              E
       accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident
       occurred in a public place."
      13. According to the learned counsel for the respondents,
on a plain reading of the above quoted Explanation, the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the death of the             F
workmen and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held
liable to pay compensation to the appellants.
      14. In our considered opinion, on the facts of this case, the
view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High             G
Court seems to be justified and correct. Therefore, no
interference is called for. This appeal being devoid of any merit
is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the parties to bear their own costs.

N.J.                                              Appeal dismissed.      H