SANJYA Vs. MUNSHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the claim petition. The deceased was admittedly a Cleaner in the 2nd respondent's truck. The accident was said to have taken place when the driver of the truck stopped when yet another vehicle belonging to the same owner was coming from the opposite direction. The driver had asked some message to be given of the driver of the other truck and when the Cleaner got down from the truck and was crossing the road, he was hit by yet another vehicle and sped away. The accident had taken place when the cleaner was returning to the truck in which he was travelling and when he was attempting to get in, the driver started the vehicle with the jerk resulting in deceased falling down and getting crushed under the tyre. The driver of the truck, however, had a different version that the cleaner was crossing the road carrying his message to the other driver and at that time a maruti van that came along with road dashed against him and went without stopping. Even a complaint to the police was not given. The Tribunal believed the version given by the driver and considering the fact that even a complaint to the police had not been given referring to the insured's truck as having run over him, the Tribunal found that there was no scope for making driver and the owner of the truck liable.

(2.) I find that the entire approach of the Tribunal was erroneous. If the Tribunal found that the death of the cleaner was not on account of the truck running over him at least it must have seen that the cleaner was in the truck in the course of his employment and when he was crossing the road to deliver a message on behalf of the driver to the other truck driver, it must still be taken as performing his duties in the course of his employment. If a death, therefore, resulted it must have been only taken that it was in the course of employment and the employer must have been made liable. The Tribunal itself would not have had the jurisdiction to try the case and best course in such a situation must have been to direct the party to the Workmen's Compensation Act for pursuing remedies on behalf of the claimants. The owner of the vehicle had actually been represented through counsel and he could not have been totally absolved of the obligations to the representatives of the deceased employee. The dismissal of the claim even without a reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act was clearly erroneous.

(3.) It seems to me that even a reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act was only a safe course of action but it was still possible to see the death as resultant to the use of a motor vehicle itself. There has been an approach to understanding the expression of a motor vehicle in an expansive way, considering the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act itself is a beneficial legislation and the injured claimant or the representatives of a deceased who had been in some way involved in any activity that had a connection to the motor vehicle, it must still be taken that the accident was on account of use of a motor vehicle. Instance where a person was found murdered in an abandoned auto rickshaw (see Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801) or by standers to an oil tanker capsizing and fire accident took place that killed persons who were collecting petrol from nearby the tanker have all been held to be victims of motor accident (see New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yadav Sambhaji More and others, 2011 2 SCC 416. It could be noticed in the latter situation that except the fact that the oil had split from the motor vehicle, the oil tanker had not itself caused the accident. Same way in this case even if the truck did not run over him over, it was a case of person getting down from the truck and walking across when yet another vehicle crushed him to death. The other vehicle was not identified or seized by the police. Indeed even police complaint had not been given. There was surely a right of cause of action against the employer but it would be still a moot point whether the insurance policy that compels an employer to take a proper cover for risk to an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act as mandated under Section 147 could be extended to this situation. If the expansive approach adopted by some of the decisions were to be applied, I have no doubt in my mind that the workman travelling in the insured's truck who come by a fatal injury while getting down from the truck by yet another vehicle going must been seen as an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. I will, therefore, make respondent No. 2 and consequently respondent No. 3 insurer as responsible for the consequences of the accident for the compensation amount.