Harijan Mangri Siddakka And Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr

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