Page No.# 1/6 vs Mustt. Taramai Begum And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 5101 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Mustt. Taramai Begum And Anr on 29 May, 2025

                                                                             Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010004492011




                                                                    2025:GAU-AS:6930

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : MACApp./28/2011

            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
            ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, MADRAS
            AND A REGIONAL OFFICE AT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-5



            VERSUS

            MUSTT. TARAMAI BEGUM and ANR.
            W/O LATE NABI HUSSAIN OF GOTLA TINIALI, A.T. ROAD, P.O.
            KALIABHOMORA, DIST. SONITPUR.

            2:MD. BHUTTO ALI

             S/O MD. GENDA MATBOR @ HAZI NASARUDDIN
             VILL. GUTLONG
             P.S. MAHABHAIRAB
             P.O.KALIABHOMORA
             DIST. SONITPUR OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AS01/D 121

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.S DUTTA,

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.G KALITA, MS.D SAIKIA amicus curie,MR.N D
BHUYAN,MR.D DAS




             Linked Case : MC/891/2011

            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
                                                                          Page No.# 2/6

            ACT
            156 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD
            MADRAS AND A REGIONAL OFFICE AT DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-5


             VERSUS

            MUSTT. TARAMAI BEGUM and ANR.
            W/O LATE NABI HUSSAIN OF GOTLA TINIALI
            A.T. ROAD
            P.O. KALIABHOMORA
            DIST. SONITPUR

            2:MD. BHUTTO ALI

            S/O MD. GENDA MATBOR @ HAZI NASARUDDIN
            VILL. GUTLONG
            P.S. MAHABHAIRAB
            P.O.KALIABHOMORA
            DIST. SONITPUR OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AS01/D 1215
            ------------
            Advocate for : MR.S DUTTA
            Advocate for : MR.D DAS appearing for MUSTT. TARAMAI BEGUM and ANR.



                                  BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

                                            ORDER

Date : 29.05.2025

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 22.03.2007 in MAC Case No. 1717/2003 (1764/2002) passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge No. 1 & Member, MACT Kamrup thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) to be paid with interest thereon @ 6 % per annum with effect from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.

2. Heard learned counsel Ms. I. Das, appearing for the appellant and learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. D. Saikia, appearing for the respondents No. 1/ claimant. None Page No.# 3/6

appears for the respondent No. 2/ owner inspite of notice.

3. The facts of the case is that on 02.03.2001, some unknown persons had hired one Maruti Van bearing Registration No. AS-01-D/1215 from Tezpur Taxi stand for going towards Guwahati; the said Maruti Van was driven by the driver. While the vehicle was proceeding towards Guwahati; the passengers on board of the vehicle in order to steal the Maruti Van killed the driver and the "handyman" of the said vehicle Late Nabi Hussain. It was the case of the claimant respondents that the death of the deceased was caused during the course of his employment under the owner of the vehicle and hence it is an accidental death arising out of the use of the said vehicle. The claimant prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand) along with No-Fault Award. The insurer of the offending vehicle appeared as OP No. 2 & 3 and contested the case by filing written statement whereas the owner of the said vehicle did not contest and hence the case proceeded ex-parte against him.

4. The learned Member MACT thereafter allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the claimants with interest @6 % P.A from the date of filing the petition till full satisfaction of the amount and the appellant/ insurer was directed to satisfy the said award.

5. Being aggrieved the insurer/appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned award on the sole ground as to whether the deceased who was employed as a 'handyman" of the Maruti Van could be covered by the insurer policy which provided for coverage of only 3 (Three) passengers including driver.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said Maruti Van which was involved in accident was a private vehicle and being a private vehicle there would have been no occasion to employ a "handyman" in such vehicle. Therefore, the private vehicle if at all being used as a hired/taxi vehicle, it would have been illegal. To support her submission, learned counsel has relied on the Page No.# 4/6

case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664. Relying on the said judgment learned counsel submits that even in the present case there is nothing to show that the owner had paid any additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a "handyman".

7. On the contrary, learned counsel submits that the policy shows that the premium was paid only for 3 (three) including driver. There is no payment of premium for a "handyman". An insurance policy, accordingly to the learned counsel for the appellants, covers only that person or classes of persons specified in the policy and moreover, it was an Act policy and not a comprehensive policy.

8. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the impugned Judgment and Award dated 22.03.2007 passed in MAC Case No. 1717/2003 ( 1764/2002) passed by the learned adhoc Additional District Judge No. 1 and Member, MACT may be modified to the extent as submitted above and prays that the insurer/appellant may not be held liable in the circumstances of the case.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. D. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent No. 1 has not disputed the grounds put forward by the appellant herein. However she has submitted that the factum of the accident which happened on 02.03.2001 involving the Maruti Van bearing Registration No. AS-01-D-1215 is not disputed by the appellants and therefore the claimant is entitled to be compensated for the accidental death of her husband.

10. This Court has considered the submission of the opposing counsels for the parties and it is evident that the only question to be decided in this case whether the deceased who was allegedly employed as a "handyman" of the Maruti Van which was involved in the accident would be covered by the insurance policy which specifically provides for coverage of 3 (three) persons including the driver.

11. In the case of Ramashray Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Page No.# 5/6

clearly stated that the " Handyman" of a vehicle in an accident cannot be termed as a third party and the insurance company cannot be saddled with a liability to make payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

12. The Apex Court held that the liability to pay the compensation shall be with the employer, the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle being the employer shall be liable to pay the awarded compensation.

13. The Court has perused the Trial Court records and the policy which has been exhibited during the trial. In the case in hand, the certificate of insurance which has been brought on record does not reveal that the "handyman" is covered by the insurance policy. The driver and 2 (two) passengers are covered and there is no mention about any handyman. The PW 1 in her cross examination categorically deposed that the vehicle was a private vehicle. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the Maruti Van was a private vehicle and hence there would be no "handyman" in such private vehicle. No doubt the deceased died by way of a Motor Vehicle Accident, however, he cannot be said to be a passenger of the vehicle but he is an employee of the owner as the " handyman" of the vehicle. As a "handyman" is not covered by the insurance policy, he cannot come within the definition of passenger in terms of the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the MV Act, 1988 as the premium has not been paid for "handyman".

14. This Court accordingly, holds that the insurance policy does not cover the deceased "handyman" and as such the insurer cannot be heard liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. The payment of compensation would be borne by the owner of that vehicle/ respondent No. 2.

15. In case the award has already been satisfied by the insurance company, the same shall be recovered from the respondent No. 2/owner. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 22.03.2007 passed by the MACT, Kamrup is modified to the extent indicated above.

Page No.# 6/6

16. Send back the TCR to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order.

17. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) deposited by the appellant/insurer shall be released back to the appellant.

18. I.A, If any, also stands disposed in view of the order passed in this case.

19. This Court expresses its appreciation to the Amicus Curiae and the Registry shall pay the notified fees to her.

20. The writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant