Section 147 MV Act| Loading/Unloading Worker In Goods Carriage Also Entitled To Benefit Of Policy In Case Of Death, Injury: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Monday laid down that a loading and unloading worker of the owner of a Tipper Lorry would also be covered under the ambit of classes of employees mentioned under clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act, 1988'). 

Section 147 of MV Act lays down the requirements of policies and the limits of liability.

Clause (c) to proviso (i) states that a policy shall not be required 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 in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee in case of a goods carriage being carried by a vehicle. 

"...loading and unloading of the goods transported in a goods carriage is to be treated as part and parcel of the purpose for which the goods carriage is intended to. Viewed from the above angle, it is to be held that loading and unloading of the goods in a goods carriage is inseparably connected with the usage of a goods carriage. In the above circumstances, unless and until the persons loading and unloading the goods in a goods carriage are also covered under clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the MV Act, the purpose of the aforesaid provision will not be served, in its true spirit," Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed. 

The 1st respondent herein, who was a loading and unloading worker in a tipper lorry owned by the 2nd respondent suffered injuries when a coconut tree he attempted to load onto the lorry fell on him. He thus approached the Employees Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation.

The appellant, United India Insurance Company admitted the policy, but disputed liability on the ground that the policy did not cover the risk of loading and unloading worker in the tipper lorry. The Employees Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12%, and Rs.2,55,962/- towards treatment expense.

The present appeal was preferred by the appellant Insurance Company on being aggrieved by the afore order. 

The appellant contended that since the 1st respondent was not the driver, conductor nor cleaner of the tipper lorry, he would not be entitled to get any compensation, and prayed for the Tribunal's order to be set aside. 

The counsel for the 1st respondent however disputed the same, and submitted that clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147 (1) of M.V. Act covered the risk of a loading and unloading worker, as well. 

The Court observed that a literal meaning of the words "any person carried in a goods carriage", as provided in clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147((1) of the MV Act would indicate that it covers only persons travelling in the goods carriage. 

However, the Court proceeded to note that the vehicle in question, being a tipper lorry is intended to carry goods. 

"Only if the goods are loaded into the goods carriage, it can be transported from one place to another. When it reaches the destination, the goods are to be unloaded also," it said, adding that loading and unloading of goods transported in a goods carriage would also have to be treated as part of the purpose for which the goods carriage is intended. 

On this basis, the Court held the 1st respondent, who had been working as a loading and unloading employee of the second respondent at the time of the accident would also come within the purview of clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the MV Act.

"I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner and as such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed," it said while dismissing the appeal. 

Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates John Joseph Vettikad, and C. Joseph Johny

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Anil Kumar K.P., and V.A. Vinod

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 655

Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razaque O.V. & Anr. 

Case Number: MFA (ECC) NO. 76 OF 2020

Click HereTo Read/Download The Judgment