Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Shukla and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021FAFO/2423/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an award under the Employees Compensation Act, this Court held that an Insurance Company is vicariously liable for injuries to a conductor on a bus operated by a State Transport undertaking under an agreement, regardless of vehicle ownership.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal dismissed and the award dated 18.06.2013 was affirmed against the Insurance Company.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2423 of 2013

¶3

Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Sunita Shukla And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Antesh Dwivedi,Lal Ji Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 18.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner, under Employees Compensation Act and Deputy Commissioner, Labour, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh in W.C. No.68 of 2011 on the ground that bus bearing registration no.U.P. 70 BT 4461 is owned by one M/s. Yashoda Travels under care of Sri Vivek Singh. This bus was insured by the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Owner of the bus entered into an agreement with Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the agreement driver of the bus was required to be provided by the owner of the bus, whereas, conductor was provided by the U.P.S.R.T.C. and, therefore, since Insurance Company had undertaken insurance of employees of M/s. Yashoda Travels, no liability could have been fastened on the Insurance Company on the ground that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the owner of the bus.

¶8

No document on record has been brought to show what were the terms and conditions of the agreement between U.P.S.R.T.C. and the owner of the bus.

¶9

As per the provisions contained in Section 2(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 "conductor" is defined as under:

¶10

" "conductor" in relation to a stage carriage, means a person engaged in collecting fares from passengers, regulating their entrance into, or exit from, the stage carriage and performing such other functions as may be prescribed."

¶11

Similarly "stage carriage" is defined under Section 2(40) as under:-

¶12

"Stage carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey."

¶13

Section 103(1)(A) as per the Uttar Pradesh State Amendment Act of 1993, reads as under:-

¶14

"It shall be lawful for a State Transport Undertaking to operate on any route as stage carriage, under any permit issued therefor to such undertaking under sub section (1), any vehicle placed at the disposal and under the control of such undertaking by the owner of such vehicle under any arrangement entered into between such owner and the undertaking for the use of the said vehicle by the undertaking."

¶15

When these three provisions are read in harmony, then it is apparent that conductor's job is in relation to a stage carriage. He acts in relation to a stage carriage, and stage carriage is a motor vehicle construed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. Stage carriage does not distinguish a motor vehicle on the basis of ownership.

¶16

Sub-section 1(A) of Section 103 of the Act makes it lawful

¶17

for State Transport undertaking to operate on any route as stage carriage, under any permit issued, therefore, to such undertaking under sub-section (1), any vehicle placed at the disposal and under the control of such undertaking by the owner of such vehicle under any arrangement entered into between such owner and the undertaking for the use of the said vehicle by the undertaking.

¶18

Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks. As per definitions given under Section 145(i), "third party" includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle.

¶19

Thus, it is apparent that conductor will fall in the definition of any other co-worker on a transport vehicle and will be included within the definition of the third party which Insurance Company is required to indemnify, therefore, the plea of the Insurance Company that, they are not liable to indemnify the claim put forth by an employee of the U.P.S.R.T.C. to which, bus of the owner was attached under an arrangement is an argument which needs to be discarded being illegal and falicious and is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, vicarious liability is that of the Insurance Company, inasmuch as, the moment an agreement was entered into between the owner of the bus and U.P.S.R.T.C., then by virtue of that agreement, conductor provided by the U.P.S.R.T.C. became an employee of the owner of the bus for the purposes of running and maintenance of the bus and to that extent owner of the bus is vicariously liable for any injury caused to the conductor.

¶20

Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Ashutosh

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Shukla and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Shukla and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vinita Devi and 2 Others Vs Babu Khan and 2 Others

Smt. Kanta Devi Alias Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Kanta Devi Alias Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Vs smt. Mamta Devi and 6 others

Smt. Janki Devi and Others Vs Bansi Dhar Yeti

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ahivaran Singh and 5 Others