Can A Labourer Hired For Loading & Unloading Goods Be Considered As Representative Of Owner Of Goods In MACT Cases?: Rajasthan HC Answers
|The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that a worker hired for loading and unloading goods can be deemed a representative of the owner of the goods.
The Court also increased compensation in a motor accident compensation claim case by Rs. 1 lakh, while affirming the liability of the insurance company. The case involved a labourer who was hired to load and unload goods and tragically died in an accident while returning after completing his work.
The Single-Bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed that, given the nature of the duties performed by the deceased worker, it is reasonable to classify him as representing the owner, as he was responsible for handling the goods with care during loading and unloading operations.
"Looking into the nature of duties discharged by a person who is hired for loading and unloading, 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 Court held.
The Bench ruled that a labourer hired for such duties is considered an authorized representative of the vehicle owner, even during the return journey, regardless of whether goods were present in the vehicle. The Court also granted consortium, a non-pecuniary compensation for loss of companionship, to the deceased’s brother, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 9.93 lakhs.
The deceased was hired to load and unload goods from a vehicle, and after completing his duties, he was returning with the driver when the vehicle met with an accident, leading to his death. The deceased's family filed a claim with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking compensation of Rs. 89.9 lakhs. The MACT awarded them Rs. 8.43 lakhs with 7% interest, holding the insurance company liable.
Dissatisfied, both the insurance company and the claimants appealed. The insurance company argued that since the deceased was merely a casual labourer, not formally employed as a cleaner or driver, he should not be considered an authorized representative of the owner, especially as no goods were in the vehicle at the time of the accident. They contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, and such passengers were not covered by the insurance policy.
The claimants, in their cross-objection, sought an enhancement of the compensation and inclusion of consortium for the deceased’s brother.
The Single-Judge dismissed the insurance company’s argument, ruling that the deceased, even while returning after unloading goods, remained an authorized representative of the owner. Referring to Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court clarified that the insurance policy covers the death or bodily injury of any person, including the owner of goods or their authorized representative.
The Bench emphasized that a person hired to load and unload goods would naturally return to the place where he was hired, and while returning without goods, he would still retain his status as an authorized representative of the owner. The Court, however, noted that this ruling was specific to the facts of this case and should not be applied broadly to all such instances.
"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 said.
The Court however clarified that it does not intend to provide a blanket exemption to all such persons who are traveling in the goods vehicle, claiming to be the owner or his authorised representative, in absence of goods at the time of accident. It is only after looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of each and every case that such persons ought to be considered as representative of the owner of the goods, the Court said.
It also addressed the issue of consortium, a claim for non-pecuniary damages such as loss of companionship and affection. The claimants argued that the deceased’s brother should be compensated under this head. The insurance company opposed this, citing previous Supreme Court judgments that limited consortium to spousal, filial, and parental relationships.
However, the Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018), granted consortium to the brother. The court highlighted that consortium is not contingent on financial dependency but rather on the loss of love, care, and companionship, which is equally applicable to siblings.
The Court upheld the insurance company’s liability and increased the compensation by Rs. 1.05 lakhs, awarding the deceased’s brother consortium. The total compensation was raised to Rs. 9.93 lakhs with interest at 7% from the date of filing the claim in September 2017. The Court also directed the nsurance company to pay the enhanced amount to the claimants.
"...this Court deems it appropriate not to grant indulgence in the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. Accordingly, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2811/2019, filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross-objection, S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 243/2020, filed by the respondent-claimants is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, dated 17.07.2019 is modified. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the respondent-claimants, with an interest @ 7% from 25.09.2017, as determined by the learned Tribunal," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jethmal Singh & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024:RJ-JD:40274]
Click here to read/download the Judgment