Dismissed

Shri. Vishal Vijay Jamdade v. Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2014WP/3344/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the petitioner vehicle owners challenged the Collector's order rejecting their claims for compensation under the Public Liability Insurance Act following a fire at a sugar factory's bagasse depot. The High Court held that since 'bagasse' was not a covered hazardous substance and the owners were not members of the public, the petitioners dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed by the vehicle owners contesting the Collector's order rejecting their claims were dismissed.

Shri. Vishal Vijay Jamdade Vs Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP334314 & 334414(64)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3343 OF 2014

¶4

Sandesh Kadolkar

¶5

Vs. Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr.

..Petitioner

..Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3344 OF 2014

Vishal Jamdade

..Petitioner

Vs.

Managing Director Warananagar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke for the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Amol Gatne for the Respondent No.2

¶16

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 4^th AUGUST, 2014

¶17

P.C.

¶18

1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against two orders both dated 192013 by which orders, the Collector Kolhapur has rejected the applications being Nos.1

¶19

of 2012 and 2 of 2012 filed by the Petitioners under the Public Liability

¶20

Insurance Act 1991 (for short the said Act) and especially clause (6) thereof making a claim against the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company, towards the

¶21

1 of 6

¶22

mmj

¶23

WP334314 & 334414(64)

¶24

loss and damages to two vehicles being a Trailer and JCB owned by the Petitioner in each of the above Petitions (for short the Petitioners).

¶25

2 The Respondent No.1 herein is a sugar factory which had insured itself under the said Act, in the sum of Rs.5 crores for one accident aggregating totally to Rs.15 crores for the policy period. It is required to be noted that in the policy document the name of the substances in respect of which the Respondent No.1 has insured itself is molasses, spirit and ethanol. Under Section 2(b) of the said Act, the Central Government from time to time specifies the hazardous substances in respect of which every owner has to insure himself/itself by an insurance policy in terms of the said Act. Significantly in the substances which have been notified the term “bagasse” does not appear. The said fact has got relevance in as much as the Petitioners two vehicles i.e. Trailer and JCB which the Petitioners abovenamed used to provide to the Respondent No.1 sugar factory, were damaged in the fire which took place in the bagasse depot of the Respondent No.1 sugar factory. On account of the said damage and loss caused to the petitioners' vehicles, the Petitioners had filed the said two applications being No.1 of 2012 and 2 of 2012 for compensation in respect of the Trailer and JCB. The said applications were replied to on behalf of the Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the stand taken was that the applications were not tenable as the Petitioners were not covered by the policy under the said Act. The stand taken in the reply was that the said policy would not cover third

¶26

2 of 6

¶27

mmj

¶28

WP334314 & 334414(64)

¶29

parties and it would only cover the members of the public. It is on the basis of the said pleadings of the parties that the Collector, Kolhapur decided the matter and has by the impugned order rejected both the applications being Nos. 1 of 2012 and 2 of 2012.

¶30

3 The gist of the reasoning of the Collector, Kolhapur is that the substance “bagasse” is not covered by the substances which have been mentioned in the policy and therefore the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the loss and damage caused to the vehicles of the Petitioners. As indicated above the orders both dated 192013 are taken exception to by the Petitioners by way of the above Petitions.

¶31

4 The principal contention urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that the said Act has been brought into effect to protect the public against the hazardous substances and to compensate them under the said Act. The Learned Counsel would contend that the term accident and handling as defined in the said Act are wide in their amplitude and would therefore cover every activity which takes place in the Respondent No.1 sugar factory. The Learned Counsel would therefore contend that the Respondent No.2 cannot avoid its liability merely because the term “bagasse” does not appear in the substances which are covered by the policy.

¶32

5 Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company would support the impugned orders passed by the

¶33

3 of 6

¶34

mmj

¶35

WP334314 & 334414(64)

¶36

Collector, Kolhapur. The Learned Counsel would contend that the liability of the Respondent No.2 would only arise if the cause of the accident are the three substances which are covered by the policy as the said substances are substances which are hazardous in nature. The Learned Counsel would contend that since bagasse is not a substance which has been mentioned in the policy, the Petitioners cannot be made liable for the alleged damage to their vehicles. The Learned Counsel would contend that it is questionable whether the claim could have been made by the Petitioners under the said Act as the Petitioners cannot be said to be members of the public as the Petitioners were supplying the said Trailer and JCB to the Respondent No.1 for its activities.

¶37

6 The Learned Counsel Mr. Patwardhan appearing for the Respondent No.1 submitted to the orders of the Court.

¶38

7 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my view, there is no merit in the above Petitions. It cannot be disputed that in so far as the insurance policies are concerned, the liability can be enforced upon the insurance company only if the accident which takes place is covered by the policy. In the instant case, it is an undisputed position that on account of fire in the bagasse depot that the vehicles of the Petitioners i.e. Trailer and JCB were allegedly damaged. It is also not the Petitioners case that it is on account of the said three hazardous substances which are mentioned in the policy that the fire had taken place. If that be so, the liability of the insurance company cannot be extended so as to cover the fire which has taken place in the bagasse depot. In mmj 4 of 6

¶39

WP334314 & 334414(64)

¶40

so far as “bagasse” is concerned it is the residue of the sugar corp which remains after the juice is extracted from the sugarcane.

¶41

8 In so far as fire is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is covered by a different policy which the Respondent No.1 has taken out to insure itself in the eventuality of fire. However, under the said policy the third parties are not covered. It is required to be noted that the object and purpose of the said Act was to cover the innocent members of the public who are in the vicinity of the factory which deals with the hazardous substances so as to compensate them before they can claim larger compensation by going to the Courts. The Petitioners undisputedly are the persons who are providing the Trailer and JCB machines to the Respondent No.1 sugar factory for its activities. It is therefore questionable whether the Petitioners can be termed as members of the public so as to be entitled to be compensated under the said Act.

¶42

9 Be that as it may, having regard to the fact the the substance “bagasse” has not been covered by the policy the Collector, Kolhapur was right in rejecting the Petitioners applications for being compensated for the alleged damages and loss caused to their vehicles. This Court does not find any error of jurisdiction committed by the Collector or any other illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Collector for this Court to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

¶43

5 of 6

¶44

mmj

¶45

WP334314 & 334414(64)

¶46

10 Needless to state that the claim of the Petitioners is rejected in so far as the said Act is concerned. If the Petitioners can make a claim under any other law, this Court does not express any opinion as regards the same.

¶47

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶48

6 of 6

¶49

mmj

Shri. Vishal Vijay Jamdade v. Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vishal Vijay Jamdade v. Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

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

Shri. Atmaram Vishram Padave and Ors. Vs Shri. Anant Mahadev Sawant and Ors.

Mr. Shankar M. Jadhav and Ors. Vs Housabai Sakharam Mandle (Since Decd) through Rls.

Jaysingpur Nagarpalika Noukar Lokanchi Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd., Vs Bhupal Annappa Mankapure (Decd.)by Lrs.-Murdevi Bhupal Mankapure and Ors.

Shri. Sandesh Parshuram Kadolkar Vs Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Suleman Aga (Since Decd) through Lrs Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhukar Kisan Matkar Since Decesed by His Heirs and Legal Representatives a) D.M. Matkar and Ors. Vs Smt. Anusaya Buwasaheb Shinde and Anr.