Labour Hired For Loading Is Owner's Authorized Representative, Even In Absence Of Goods On Return Journey: Rajasthan HC Gives Redress Under MV Act

Enhancing the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by Rs. 1 Lakh, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the liability of the Insurance Company in a case where the deceased was hired to load and unload the goods from a vehicle but when the vehicle was returning after unloading the goods, it met with an accident.A single judge bench of Justice Nupur Bhati ruled that a labourer hired for loading and unloading the goods, while travelling, would be considered as an authorized representative of the owner of the goods, even while returning back after unloading, in the absence of such goods, if he returns back to the same place from where he was hired for such duty. The Court also enhanced the liability of the Insurance Company in the case, by ruling that "consortium" being a non-pecuniary head for giving compensation is not to be considered in light of dependency of a claimant upon the deceased. Thus, the court said, that even the deceased's siblings qualify for compensation under this head since they are also deprived of the love, care, affection and company of the deceased, which cannot be quantified. Notably, a consortium in an accident case is a claim that a family member can make for loss of companionship, affection and certain unquantifiable benefits. BackgroundThe Court was hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company assailing the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) which had partly allowed the claim of respondents-claimant awarding them Rs. 8,43,760 with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim(September 25, 2017), while fastening the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company.On the other hand, the claimants had also filed a cross-objection to the tribunal's order praying enhancement of the award passed.The deceased was hired to load and unload the goods at one place and while he, along with the driver of the vehicle, was returning after unloading the goods, the vehicle met with an accident, leading to death of the deceased.The dependents of the deceased filed a claim before the MACT claiming Rs, 89,90,000/- as compensation.Not a Gratuitous PersonIt was the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not employed on the vehicle but was only engaged as casual labourer to unload the goods. And since the policy was a “Goods carrying commercial vehicle-public carrier other than three wheelers package policy”, it only covered the owner, driver and cleaner of the vehicle. The insurer said that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger and the "risk of gratuitous passenger" was not covered in the insurance policy.The counsel for the Insurance Company further argued that the deceased should not have been treated as representative of owner of the goods because at the time of accident, there were no goods in the vehicle since the unloading had already happened. Thus, the deceased was a gratuitous person and not representative of owner of the goods. The Court perused Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and observed that the insurance policy covers the liability of death or bodily injury to any person "including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative", or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Deceased was authorized representative of goods even for return journeyLooking at the "nature of duties" of a person hired for loading and unloading, the high court said, "it is prudent to concur with the findings of the learned Tribunal that the deceased, who was hired for the purpose of loading and unloading the goods, and consider him as the representative of owner of the goods inasmuch as he was responsible for loading and unloading the goods, with due care and caution". The high court further held that even while returning back after unloading, in the absence of goods, the person would continue to remain an authorized representative "for the journey back", provided the person returned to the place from where he was hired to discharge such duties.“A person who has been hired to unload goods at a certain place, would reasonably accompany the driver on the way back after unloading the goods at the respective place and it is apparent that while coming back, they would not have the goods with them, however, he will continue to remain an authorized representative of the goods for the journey back, provided that the person so authorized for the loading and unloading of goods, comes back to same place, from where he was hired to discharge the said duties," the court held. However, the Court cautioned that the observations were made looking at the nature of duties discharged by the deceased and not as a blanket one in respect of all such persons travelling in the goods vehicle in the absence of goods at the time of accident. Hence, in every case, the peculiar facts and circumstances should be considered to decide whether a person was authorized representative or not, it said....

Labour Hired For Loading Is Owner's Authorized Representative, Even In Absence Of Goods On Return Journey: Rajasthan HC Gives Redress Under MV Act

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Labour Hired For Loading Is Owner's Authorized Representative, Even In Absence Of Goods On Return Journey: Rajasthan HC Gives Redress Under MV Act

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers