UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KARUR Vs. NACHIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurance company has filed the above appeals against the award in M. C. O. P. Nos. 422 and 384 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Karur. Since both the O. Ps. arise out of a single accident, the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE claimants in O. P. No. 384 of 1992 are the father and brother of one Balu who died in the accident. THE claimant in O. P. No. 422 of 1992 is the injured in the accident. THE claimants' case is that the deceased Balu and the claimant in O. P. No. 422 of 1992 while travelling in a delivery van on 24. 2. 92 at about 8. 10 p. m. in Trichy Karur main road, near Kalipalayam, the van dashed against the bus which came in the opposite direction, the said deceased was employed as the person to deliver the goods and another claimant Nachimuthu was the salesman and both of them were travelling in the van as employees of the owner of the goods, since they were entrusted by their employer the work of delivering the articles to the respective persons. THE respondents 3 and 4 in c. M. A. No. 487 of 1995 and 2 and 3 in C. M. A. No. 486 of 1995 are the owner of the van as well as the goods and the owners of the bus respectively.

(3.) SO far as the claimant in M. C. O. P. No. 422 of 1992 is concerned, he is a salesman. The vehicle insured is a deliver van. It is the normal practice that the owner of the goods would depute the salesman as well as the delivery man in order to deliver the goods to the several consignees. In the delivery van, except the driver, only these two persons would travel, as the employees of the owner of the goods. It is not clear as to when the insurance company made entries with regard to the words' 3 coolies and whether it has informed the owner of the vehicle who is also the owner of the goods in this case, that the extra premium is paid only for the coolies and who are all the persons covered under this term' coolie. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts that the insurance had been made compulsory, since it is a beneficiary provisions. When the court has to consider the beneficiary enactment, it has to construe the same more liberally than to give the narrow interpretation to the words used. If the matter is viewed in this angle, the word' coolie cannot be given a narrow interpretation of covering those who received the daily wages alone or the persons who are employed in a lower grade. When normally no coolies were employed, in a delivery van, the word' coolie would cover the other persons who are employed by the owner of the goods or the owner of the vehicle. If the insurance company has let in evidence to the effect that the insured has been put on notice about the words' coolies used in the policy and the persons who would be covered under that word, then the matter will be standing on a different footing. In the absence of any such material and considering the nature of the litigation, the courts have given a liberal interpretation, the courts have given a liberal interpretation to cover the employees of the owner of the goods as well as employees of the owner of the vehicle. Hence I hold that the claimant in O. P. No. 422 of 1992 who is the salesman is also covered under the policy and as such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.