Appeals against refusal of indemnity for injuries to laborers engaged for unloading goods. Court held that compulsory insurance covers casual workers offered to unload, invalidating the insurer's exoneration.
Appeals allowed; awards modified to grant owner/full indemnity right for insurer to answer claims of injured laborers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1054 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision:17.10.2012.
| Hans Raj | ...Appellant |
|---|---|
| versus | |
| Nathu Ram and another | ....Respondents |
| II. FAO No.1055 of 1993 (O&M) |
|
| Hans Raj | ...Appellant |
| versus | |
| Darbara Singh and another | ....Respondents |
| III. FAO No.1056 of 1993 (O&M) |
|
| Hans Raj | ...Appellant |
| versus | |
| Amar Singh and another | ....Respondents |
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate, and Mr. Balbir Chahar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ----
FAO No.1054 of 1993 (O&M) - 2 -
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
2,000/- per month and the driver gave evidence to the effect that he gave lift to the petitioners on an undertaking that they would unload the goods which had been carried in the insured truck. The written statement of the owner was that the said claimants were engaged by the driver during transit for unloading. One of the claimants as well as the driver gave evidence about the nature of engagement, namely, that the driver had offered to pay 1 per bag for unloading from the vehicle. The Tribunal discarded this evidence on the ground that the petitioners themselves had not stated that they were employed under the first respondent and found the pleading to be deficient to cast the liability on the Insurance Company.FAO No.1054 of 1993 (O&M) - 3 -
the Tribunal has needlessly looked for extracting standards of pleadings and proof. If the claimants had stated that they were labourers, it is wholly unnecessary that such labourer must be in a contract of permanent employment with the first respondent. Again, loadman are not persons, who would require to be employed on a permanent basis before making the insurer liable. I have seen through the policy and it is comprehensive. The requirement of compulsory insurance avails not merely to the driver or a conductor, but also to persons engaged in the goods vehicle upto 6 persons. This engagement could be wholly on a casual basis for even the Workmen's Compensation Act includes within the definition of “Workmen”, a person, who is employed on a casual basis. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a claim for full indemnity by the owner for the injuries suffered by persons, who were given lift for the purpose of unloading the goods from the vehicle. It is an admitted case that there were 30 bags of bajra that had been loaded in the insured's truck at the time when the accident had taken place. The exoneration of liability for the insurer was, therefore, not tenable in law.
FAO No.1054 of 1993 (O&M) - 4 -
indemnity for making the insurer liable. All the appeals are allowed
on the above terms.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE
17.10.2012 sanjeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether casual laborers engaged for unloading goods are covered under compulsory insurance policy.
Whether the Tribunal correctly denied indemnity based on deficient pleading regarding employment.
Hans Raj
Nathu Ram
Nathu Ram
Hans Raj
Hans Raj
Hans Raj
Kannan J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court