Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HANUMANAGOUDA versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

Decided
28 January 2014
Judges listed
P. SATHASIVAM (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 853 · 2014 INSC 57
Also cited as
  • (2014) 9 SCC 341 (5 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2015 SC 1467 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

p. 855, margin A

2

Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a lorry, two persons died and others received injuries. All the thirteen claim petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 21.01.2002 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') presided by the Principal District Judge at Raichur (Karnataka). This appeal relates only to claim filed by dependents and legal representatives of deceased Hanumanth which included his widow Smt. Mariyamma and three minor children, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. The Tribunal allowed their claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled for compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, the appellant and also from respondent-Insurance Company as they were held responsible jointly and severally. The claim was allowed with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization with costs fixed at Rs.200/-.

p. 855, margin A

3

In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High Court by the order under Appeal dated 17.10.2005 interfered with the Award made against the Insurer in respect of death 'of Hanumanth and held that the Award was bad in law because the deceased was in a clerical cadre working as a Gumasthe accompanying the good,s in transit for the purpose of delivery and as such he could not be covered by the clause under which premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. Against this order passed in MFA No.2451 of 2002, the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle has preferred this appeal.

p. 855, margin E

4

The only issue requiring determination is whether the clause IMT 17 for which premium was paid to the insurer in respect of the concerned lorry will cover the deceased Hamumanth or not.

pp. 855–856, margin H

5

For deciding the above issue, one is simply required to go through the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose copy has been made available to us. The clause reads thus: "Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17".

p. 856, margin A

6

The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding that the insurer is not liable in respect of death of Hanumanth. The clause - "persons employed in connection with the operation" is clearly over and above the coverage provided by the policy to "persons employed in connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle". As Gumasthe, the deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery of goods. This has been accepted by the High Court. Obviously, as Gumasthe the deceased would be covered by the expression "persons employed in connection with operation of motor vehicle" The operation of the aforesaid clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in connection with loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.

p. 856, margin C

7

In view of the aforesaid error committed by the High Court, the order under appeal is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. As a result, the respondent-Insurance Company will be bound by the Award made by the Tribunal for paying compensation to the claimants for the death of Hanumath as per orders of the Tribunal. The dues of compensation along with due interest should be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company within eight weeks with the Tribunal which will permit the claimants to withdraw the amount as per order of the Tribunal.

p. 856, margin D

8

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 856, margin G