Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the owner of a truck-tanker (vehicle no. MH-11/A-5498) against the judgment and award of the Claim Tribunal, Nilanga, in Claim Petition No.29 of 2009. The accident occurred on 4-6-2008, when the tanker turned turtle, resulting in the death of Priyanka, a 14-year-old girl who was an employee of the owner and was sitting in the cabin while proceeding to work. The claimants, parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2.5 lakh against the driver, owner, and insurance company. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,500 on the principle of fault but exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the deceased was only 14 years old and could not have been employed as a labourer on such work, implying a violation of child labour laws. The owner challenged the decision, arguing that the insurance company should be liable. The court heard both sides. The court held that the insurance company is not liable because the employment of a minor is prohibited under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and thus the insurance policy does not cover such risk. However, the owner, as the employer, is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court allowed the appeal in part, directing the owner to pay the compensation amount to the claimants, with the insurance company exonerated.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - Death of minor employee - Owner's liability - Insurance company exonerated due to child labour violation - Owner held liable to pay compensation as employer - The court held that the insurance company is not liable because the deceased was a minor employed in contravention of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, but the owner, as employer, is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Paras 1-5)
B) Child Labour - Employment of minor - Prohibition - Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - The court noted that employing a 14-year-old child as a labourer on a tar tanker is prohibited under the Act, and thus the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner when the deceased was a minor employed in violation of child labour laws, and whether the owner can be held liable for compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed in part. The insurance company is exonerated. The owner is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,84,500 to the claimants.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Compensation for death of minor
- Employer's liability
- Insurance company's liability
- Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act
- 1986
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 28
First Appeal No.2631 of 2013
Shri. Ravibhushan P. Adgaonkar for appellants, Shri. S.B. Gastgar for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Shri. S.S. Rathi for respondent No.4
Bharat S/o Piraji Jadhav and Sayyed Sujaoddin S/o Nizamoddin Khatib
Rajkumar S/o Baliram Suryawanshi, Komal w/o Rajkumar Suryawanshi, Anamika D/o Rajkumar Suryawanshi, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and award of Claim Tribunal in a motor accident claim petition.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (owner and driver) sought to set aside the Tribunal's award exonerating the insurance company and to hold the insurance company liable to indemnify the owner.
Filing Reason
The insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was a minor employed in violation of child labour laws, and the owner was directed to pay compensation.
Previous Decisions
The Claim Tribunal, Nilanga, in Claim Petition No.29 of 2009, awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,500 to the claimants but exonerated the insurance company.
Issues
Whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner when the deceased was a minor employed in violation of child labour laws.
Whether the owner is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act despite the insurance company being exonerated.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the insurance company should be liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured.
Respondent No.4 (insurance company) argued that the deceased was a minor employed illegally, thus the insurance policy does not cover such risk.
Ratio Decidendi
The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner when the deceased was a minor employed in contravention of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, as such employment is illegal and not covered by the insurance policy. However, the owner, as employer, is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- on the principle of fault but the insurance company is exonerated by holding that age of the deceased was only 14 years and she could not have been employed as a labour on such work.
The insurance company is not liable because the employment of a minor is prohibited under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and thus the insurance policy does not cover such risk.
Procedural History
Claim Petition No.29 of 2009 was filed before the Claim Tribunal, Nilanga, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,500 on 3rd March 2016, exonerating the insurance company. The owner filed First Appeal No.2631 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the exoneration of the insurance company.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 166
- Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986:
