'Hamali' Not A Gratuitous Passenger, Falls Within Definition Of Third Party Under Motor Vehicles Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Hamali cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger and comes within the ambit of 'third party' under Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act.A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Nyapathy Vijay, explaining the scope of Section 145(i), observed,“The Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Hamali cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger and comes within the ambit of 'third party' under Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Nyapathy Vijay, explaining the scope of Section 145(i), observed,
“The Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term 'third party'. As per the amended definition, 'third party' includes any co-worker on transport vehicle other than the owner and the driver.
The ruling came in an appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Anantapur, Anantapur District.
Initially, the deceased in the present case, one B. Ramanjaneyulu, was employed as Hamali by the owner of Tractor and Trailer (O.P. 1), which was used to carry gravel from hillock to the surrounding work spots. Usually, the driver employed by the owner of the Tractor and Trailer used to collect coolies and to go to hillock for chipping the gravel and loading it on the Tractor and Trailer for unloading at the required spot.
On 24.08.2004, the deceased was proceeding towards the hillock on the Trailer when the vehicle suffered a sudden jerk in the movement which made the decreased fall down. Subsequently, the wheel of the Trailer ran over him, leading to his demise.
Since the death was caused during the course of employment, compensation was sought by the wife, children and parents of the deceased from the owner of the Tractor and Trailer. Additionally, a criminal case was registered under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the tractor. Since the vehicle was insured with an Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was arrayed as O.P. No.2 in the claim application.
After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that the deceased was employed by O.P. No.1 and the accident was caused during the course of employment. The Commissioner held that the owner and the Insurance Company were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and awarded a total of Rs. 2,13,595/- as compensation with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation.
Aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court. It was contended that the Insurance Company should not be made liable to pay the compensation because the owner had admitted that no premium was paid covering the deceased. Additionally, it was further contended that the vehicle was insured only for agricultural purposes, however, it was being used for non-agricultural purposes and, therefore, no liability could be attached to the Insurance Company.
The Court observed that the deceased, being a Hamali, was not a gratuitous passenger and came within the amended definition of 'third party' under Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance was placed on the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi Anjaneyulu, where it was held that the amendment to the definition of 'third party' is merely clarificatory and is applicable retrospectively to cover the risk of the driver or any other co-worker on transport vehicle as third-party.
On the argument that the vehicle was being used for a non-agricultural purpose at the material point of time, the Court held that the owner had testified that the crime vehicle was used to transport stones for fencing his land to prevent cattle intrusion. This statement was not cross-examined by the Insurance Company, and the same would amount to an admission by the Insurance Company regarding the purpose of usage of the vehicle on that particular day.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court accordingly dismissed it.
Case Details:
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.982 of 2010
Case Name: The Divisional Manager, Anantapur District v. B Gangamma, Anantapur District
Date: 03.03.2025
