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.
Background
The 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 Person
It 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 journey
Looking 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.
Consortium to include siblings
In the cross-objection filed by the claimants, it was argued that the Tribunal had erred in not providing the consortium to the brother of the deceased and thus, the award needed to be enhanced.
On the other hand, the counsel for the insurance company argued that in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v Somwati (2020), the Supreme Court had taken into account only three types of consortium i.e. spousal, filial and parental, hence brother of the deceased could not be granted the consortium.
For context spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child; parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent.
The Court referred to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) in which the Supreme Court had ruled that right to consortium included the care, company, help, comfort, guidance, affection of the deceased, which was a loss to the family due to death of the deceased. The apex court had also said that consortium is a "special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships".
The high court then said, "This Court also finds that, contrary to the pecuniary heads, where factors such as dependency are important to ascertain the loss, the consortium, being a non-pecuniary head is not to be considered in the light of dependency of a claimant upon the deceased inasmuch as even the siblings, as in the present case, would be deprived of the love, care, affection and company of the deceased, which can not be quantified".
The high court thereafter deemed it appropriate to grant compensation towards the "head of consortium" to the brother of the deceased also.
Applying the ratio in Magma General the high court said,“...it is apposite to observe that even the brother, as in the present case would be deprived of the care, company, guidance and affection of his deceased brother and for this reason, in view of this Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the brother would not be entitled to receive consortium, is considered bereft of merit.”
The high court also said that the Supreme Court in Magma General case, while dealing with the types of consortium has taken into consideration the three types of consortium, i.e. spousal, filial and parental, had however "simultaneously also awarded compensation towards the head of compensation, to the sister of the deceased".
Accordingly, the high court not only not only affirmed the lability of the insurance company as ascertained by the Tribunal but also enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,93,760 by providing consortium to the deceased's brother.
"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," it directed.
Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Jethmal Singh & Ors. and connected cross objection
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 298