IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14110 of 2006)

Harijan Mangri Siddakka & Ors. ...Appellants

versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  this  appeal  is  to  the  order  passed  by  a

learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court disposing of

an  appeal  filed  under  Section  30(1)  of  Workmen’s

Compensation Act, 1928 (in short the ‘Act’).   The appellants

lodged  claim  petition  claiming  compensation  in  respect  of

certain  persons  who  had  lost  their  lives.  According  to  the

appellants  the  deceased  persons  were  employed  as

workmen/labourer in a tractor and trailor combination which

was the subject matter of insurance.  When the trailor was

being loaded with mud from the quarry, huge quantity of mud

had  collapsed  from the  quarry  smothering  the  workmen  to

death.  The  Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (in

short  the  ‘Commissioner’)  held  that the  accident  had taken

place during and in the course of the employment and since

the vehicle has been used for purposes of loading, the Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. were liable to indemnify the award

made.   The Insurer challenged the correctness of the award

taking  the  stand  that  the  liability  of  the  insurer  arises  on

account of death on a bodily injury arising out of the use of

the  vehicle  and  in  the  present  case  the  admitted

circumstances  indicate  that  there  was  no  proximate

connection  between  the  use  of  the  vehicle  and  the  actual

cause of death which was overlooked by the Commissioner.

Stand of the appellants was that the insurer is not correct in

submitting that there was no use of the vehicle at the time of

2

accident.  It was pointed out that though the death occurred

at  a  place  away  from the  vehicle  or  the  fact  that  the  mud

which was being loaded on to the trailor from the quarry had

killed  the  workmen,  is  immaterial  since  the  policy  of  the

Insurance is intended to cover the risk of workmen employed

in the vehicle.  The High Court found that there was no actual

use  of  the  vehicle  and  therefore  there  was  no  casual

connection  between  the  cause  of  death  and the  use  of  the

vehicle.   

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  no

reason  has  been  indicated  by  the  High  Court  to  hold  that

there  was no casual  connection between the death and the

use of the vehicle. Reference is made to certain judgments of

the High Court where the view expressed by learned Single

Judge was not accepted.   

4. We  find  that  there  is  practically  no  discussion  on  the

factual  scenario  as  to  whether  there  was any connection

between  the  death  and  the  use  of  the  vehicle.  It  would

3

depend upon the factual scenario in each case and there

cannot be any strait jacket formula to be applied.

5. The expression “use” in the Statute is with reference to

“use of the motor vehicle”.  Whether there was a use of the

motor vehicle has to be factually analysed.  Since in this case

the factual position has not been examined in detail, it would

be appropriate for the High Court to deal the matter afresh.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit

the matter to the High Court.

6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion

on the merits of the case. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid

extent.  No costs.

…………..............................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…........................................J. (H.S. BEDI)

New Delhi, July 16, 2008

4