Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Puran Chand And Others on 9 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 07.02.2023
Pronounced on 09.02.2023
MA No. 344/2014
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Q
Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate
Vs
Puran Chand and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-insurance company has challenged award dated
29.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kathua
whereby respondent No. 1-claimant has been held entitled to
compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-along with 6% interest per annum from
the date of petition till its realisation. The appellant-insurance company
has been burdened with the liability to satisfy the award to the extent of
respondent No. 1-Puran Chand.
2. It appears that on 26.02.2007, a goods carrier vehicle bearing
registration No. JK02D 6852 while proceeding from Batote to Assar
suffered an accident, as a result of which, occupants of the vehicle
including respondent No. 1-Puran Chand suffered injuries. Respondent
No. 1-Puran Chand and one more injured person-Dharminder Sehgal
who was also travelling in the same vehicle filed two separate claim
petitions before the learned Tribunal and same came to be decided by a
common judgment and award dated 29.03.2014 which has been
impugned by the appellant-insurance company to the extent of
compensation awarded to respondent No. 1-Puran Chand.
3. The ground urged by the appellant-insurance company in challenging
the impugned award is that risk to the life of respondent No. 1-Puran
Chand, who was travelling in a goods vehicle, was not covered as per
the terms of the Policy of Insurance. It is further contended that as per
the record, no injury was suffered by respondent No. 1 to his leg, but
the disability certificate shows that he has suffered disability of his
lower limb. It is urged that the disability certificate does not correlate to
the injuries suffered by respondent No. 1.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I
have also gone through the impugned award.
5. Admittedly, respondent No. 1-Puran Chand was travelling in the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident and the offending vehicle
is a goods carrier vehicle. Respondent No. 1 has claimed that he was
travelling as a labourer for loading/unloading the stock loaded in the
vehicle, which belonged to the owner. Learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that in terms of the Policy of the Insurance, it is only the
labourers engaged by the owner of the vehicle whose risk is covered
and that risk to the life of the labourer engaged by owner of the goods
being carried in the vehicle is not covered. Learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been
considered by the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned award.
6. If we have a look at the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy,
which is subject matter of the case, it clearly provides that insurance
company shall not be liable in respect of death or injury to any person
who are not employees of the insured other than owner of the goods or
representative of the owner of the goods being carried in the insured
vehicle. The relevant clause is reproduced as under:
"(f) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements
of the Motor Vehicles Act the Company shall not be liable
in respect of death and/or bodily injury to any
person(s)who is/are not employee(s) of the insured and not
being carried for hire or reward, other than owner of the
goods or representative of the owner of goods being
carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting
from the insured vehicle described in the Schedule of this
Policy."
7. From a perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that risk to the life of
owner of the goods being carried in the vehicle or his representative is
covered by the terms of the Policy. In the instant case, it has been
established that respondent No. 1-claimant was travelling in the
offending vehicle as a labourer engaged by owner of the goods that
were being transported in the vehicle in question. Thus, he was certainly
a representative of the owner of the goods being carried in the vehicle.
It cannot therefore, be stated that risk to the life of respondent No. 1
was not covered under the terms of the Policy of Insurance. The
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is
without any substance and deserves to be rejected.
8. So far as the contention of the appellant that injuries sustained by the
respondent No. 1 do not correlate to the disability certificate is
concerned, the same is also without any merit. In the injury form and
the medical record placed on record of the Tribunal, it has been clearly
shown that respondent No. 1 has suffered fracture to his right leg. Even
the statement of the injured is also to the same effect. The disability
certificate clearly depicts that respondent No. 1 has suffered 40% of
permanent disability on account of fracture of shaft of right femur with
stiffness of his right knee and hip with pain. Thus, disability certificate
clearly correlates with the injuries that were sustained by respondent
No. 1 due to the accident. The argument of learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard is also without any merit.
9. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal lacks
merit and is dismissed as such.
10. The amount of award, if deposited in the Registry, be released in favour
of the respondent No. 1-claimant along with interest in terms of the
award.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Jammu
09.02.2023
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
