Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jalna, in W.C.A. No.9 of 2001, which held the United India Insurance Company jointly and severally liable with the employer for compensation to the legal heirs of deceased driver Madhukar Kamble. The deceased was employed as a driver by respondent no.5 firm and respondent no.6, the truck owner. While on duty, he drove the truck to Mumbai, unloaded goods, and proceeded towards Dombivali. He stopped at Manpada to telephone his manager, crossed the road to a telephone booth, and after the call, while crossing back towards the parked truck, was struck by an unknown jeep and died. The claimants, his widow and children, filed the compensation application alleging death arising out of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner, in an ex parte proceeding as the respondents did not appear and the insurer did not file a written statement, awarded Rs.1,78,490/- against both employer and insurer. Aggrieved, the insurer filed the present first appeal, contending that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the cause of death was not proximate to its actual user, thus no liability could arise under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Company, where similar facts led to the insurer being absolved. The respondents supported the award, arguing that the insurer had not contested the claim before the Commissioner and the evidence showed death during employment. The High Court examined the evidence and found that, even accepting the claimants’ own case, the insured truck was parked on one side of the road while the deceased was struck by an unknown jeep on the opposite side while returning from a phone call. There was no involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. Citing the Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that for insurer liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, the death must be proximately caused by the use of the insured vehicle; mere employment on it at the time is insufficient. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the liability of the insurer set aside, and the claimants were left to recover the compensation from the employer. The Court also directed that the balance deposited amount by the insurer be refunded with interest, and the claimants refund the 40% they had withdrawn.
Headnote
A) Insurance Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurer's Liability - Proximate Cause to Use of Insured Vehicle - Section 147, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The insurer of a vehicle is not liable for the death of a driver if the death occurred away from the vehicle and was caused by a different unknown vehicle while the driver was crossing the road. The cause of death must be proximately connected to the actual user of the insured vehicle; mere fact that the deceased was employed as a driver on that vehicle at the relevant time is insufficient. The High Court, following Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Company, set aside the Commissioner's award against the insurer, holding that the insured truck was not involved in the accident. Held that the insurer is not liable under Section 147 when the death is not due to the use of the insured vehicle. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
If a driver employed on a vehicle suffers accidental death while on duty but the cause of his death is not proximate to the actual user of the said vehicle, whether the insurer of the said vehicle can be made liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased driver?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Liability of appellant Insurance Company set aside. Claimants entitled to recover compensation from employer. Directed refund of deposited balance amount to insurer with interest, and claimants to refund the withdrawn 40% to insurer.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Insurer not liable under Motor Vehicles Act if death not proximately caused by use of insured vehicle
- Proximate cause to actual user of vehicle required
- Mere employment on vehicle insufficient for insurer's liability
