1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7428   OF  2010

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8638/2006)

MAMTAJ BI BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS.               Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.            Respondent(s)

           J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  emanates  from  the  judgment  and  

final  order  dated  25.10.2005  passed  by  the  High  

Court  of  Karnataka  at  Bangalore  in  M.F.A.  

No.5843/2003 (WC) and M.F.A. No.5844/2003 (WC).

3. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of  

this appeal are recapitulated as under:

The claimants-respondents in M.F.A. No.5843 of  

2003 are the legal representatives of one Bapusab  

Nadaf  and  the  claimants-respondents  in  M.F.A.

2

No.5844  of  2003  are  the  legal  representatives  of  

Basappa Gurappa Hipparagi, who were workmen engaged  

in  uploading  Maize  (foodgrain)  from  a  tractor-

trailer.  When  Maize  was  being  unloaded  from  the  

tractor to  an underground  storage bin  ('Hagevu'),  

both the labourers climbed the grocery pit in order  

to  clean  the  same  for  storing  Maize  and  while  

cleaning  they  fell  into  the  grocery  pit.  They  

shouted from inside that they were suffocating, a  

rope was released to them but they did not catch it  

and they died due to asphyxia.  These facts are not  

disputed.   

4. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  

submitted  that  the  Insurance  Company  has  clear  

responsibility for this accident and the Insurance  

Company is liable and under an obligation to pay  

compensation to the appellants. This contention is  

rebutted by the learned counsel for the Insurance  

Company.  According to him, the vehicle in question  

was  not  involved  in  the  accident.  He  further  

submitted that there has been no proximity or direct  

connection with the death of the workmen with the  

vehicle in any manner. At the time of the accident

3

the vehicle in question was not in operation.   

5. The claim  petitions filed  by the  appellants  

before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,  

Bizapur, were allowed and the Commissioner vide its  

judgment dated 24th July, 2003, found the Insurance  

Company  liable  to  pay  compensation  to  the  

appellants.  

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Insurance  

Company preferred in M.F.A. No.5843/2003 and M.F.A.  

No.5844/2003 before the High Court of Karnataka at  

Bangalore.  The High Court allowed the appeals and  

modified the order passed by the Commissioner and  

the  liability  of  the  Insurance  Company  was  set  

aside. However, the appellants were at liberty to  

recover  the  amount  of  compensation  from  the  

employer.   

7. According to the reasoning of the High Court,  

the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the  

death of the workmen by no stretch of imagination  

can  be  said  to  have  any  proximate  or  direct  

connection  with  the  vehicle.  The  High  Court  also

4

observed that the mere fact that Maize was brought  

to  the  spot  where  the  workmen  had  died  in  the  

insured  vehicle,  would  not  render  the  Insurance  

Company liable in respect of the death, the cause of  

which was not proximate to the actual user of the  

vehicle.   

8. In the present case, the use of the vehicle  

was not even claimed as being a ground on which the  

liability is said to be fastened on the Insurance  

Company.   

9. Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants placed reliance on the decision of this  

Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. vs. Vatschala  

Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530. Brief facts of that  

case are that  a collision between a petrol tanker  

and  a  truck  took  place  on  a  National  Highway  at  

about 3.00 a.m. as a result of which the tanker went  

off the road and fell on its left side at a distance  

of  about  20  feet  from  the  Highway.  Due  to  

overturning of the tanker, the petrol contained in  

it leaked out and collected nearby.  At about 7.15  

a.m. an explosion took place in the tanker causing

5

burn injuries to those assembled near it including  

the  respondent's  son  who  later  succumbed  to  the  

injuries.  The  facts  of  this  case  are  entirely  

different  and  are  not  applicable  to  the  present  

case. In this case, the petrol tanker was directly  

involved in the accident and that all the workmen  

were directly connected with the accident. This case  

does not help the appellants in any manner.  

10. Learned counsel  for the  appellants has  also  

placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the  

Karnataka High Court delivered on 24th February, 2006  

in  M.F.A.  No.1870/2005  (WC).  In  that  case,  the  

workman who was working as a loader, went in the  

lorry  and  loaded  the  lorry  with  stones  and  

thereafter he was required to unload the same close  

to  the  Crusher  near  the  quarry  along  with  other  

loaders.  At about 2.30 p.m. in the afternoon, the  

deceased workman got down from the lorry in order to  

unload the stones along with other loaders and when  

they  opened  the  lock  at  the  hind  portion  of  the  

lorry, the entire load of stones in the lorry fell  

on him, as a result of which he sustained injuries  

and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. In this

6

case,  the  vehicle  was  directly  involved  in  the  

unfortunate accident.   

11. Both the  above-mentioned cases  relied on  by  

the learned counsel for the appellants are of no  

avail to him. These cases do not help the appellants  

in any manner.  

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has  

placed reliance on the Explanation to Section 147(1)  

of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988,  which  reads  as  

under:

“147. Requirements of policies and limits of  

liability.-  (1)  In  order  to  comply  with  the  

requirements  of  this  Chapter,  a  policy  of  

insurance must be a policy which-

(a)  is  issued  by  a  person  who  is  an  

authorised insurer; and

(b)  insures  the  person  or  classes  of  

persons  specified  in  the  policy  to  the  extent  

specified in sub-section (2)-

(i)  against  any  liability  which  may  be  

incurred by him in respect of of the death of or  

bodily injury to any person, including owner of  

the  goods  or  his  authorised  representative  

carried in the vehicle or damage to any property  

of a third party caused by or arising out of the  

use of the vehicle in a public place;

7

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury  

to  any  passenger  of  a  public  service  vehicle  

caused  by  or  arising  out  of  the  use  of  the  

vehicle in a public place;

Provided  that  a  policy  shall  not  be  

required-  

(i) to cover liability in respect of the  

death, arising out of and in the course of his  

employment, of the employee of a person insured  

by  the  policy  or  in  respect  of  bodily  injury  

sustained by such an employee arising out of and  

in  the  course  of  his  employment  other  than  a  

liability  arising  under  the  Workmen's  

Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of  

the  death  of,  or  bodily  injury  to,  any  such  

employee-  

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or    

(b)  if  it  is  a  public  service  vehicle  

engaged  as  conductor  of  the  vehicle  or  in  

examining tickets on the vehicle, or  

(c)  if  it  is  a  goods  carriage,  being  

carried in the vehicle, or  

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.

Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is  

hereby   declared that the death of or bodily  

injury to any person or damage to any property of  

a third party shall be deemed to have been caused  

by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle  

in a public place notwithstanding that the person  

who is dead or injured or the property which is  

damaged was not in a public place at the time of  

the accident, if the act or omission which led to  

the accident occurred in a public place.”

8

13. According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents, on a plain reading of the above  quoted  

Explanation, the  Insurance Company  cannot be  held  

liable for the death of the workmen and therefore,  

the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay  

compensation to the appellants.   

14. In  our  considered  opinion,  on  the  facts  of  

this  case,  the  view  taken  by  the  learned  Single  

Judge  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  seems  to  be  

justified and correct. Therefore, no interference is  

called for. This appeal being devoid of any merit is  

accordingly  dismissed.  However,  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  this  case,  the  parties  to  bear  

their own costs.  

.....................J       (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi; September 07, 2010.