Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 902 - SC - Indian LawsLimitation of Liability - liability to third parties - Whether Dr. Alpesh Gandhi could have been said to have been in the employ of the Respondent No. 3 on the date of the accident, as a result of which the limitation of liability provision in favour of the Respondent No. 1 as set out would kick in? - HELD THAT:- The High Court held in the impugned judgment that as additional premium had been paid so as to attract the applicability of IMT-5, in any case the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy to pay compensation in the case of death to unnamed passengers other than the insured and his paid driver or cleaner, Dr. Alpesh Gandhi being one such unnamed passenger. This was done on the footing that the exception to IMT-5 was that a person in the employ of the insured coming within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is excluded from the cover, but that as Dr. Alpesh Gandhi did not come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, compensation payable due to his death in a motor accident would be covered by IMT-5. Whether the expression "employment" is to be construed widely or narrowly - if widely construed, a person may be said to "employed" by an employer even if he is not a regular employee of the employer? - HELD THAT:- The wider meaning that has been canvassed for by the insurance company cannot possibly be given, given the language immediately before, namely, "in the course of", thereby indicating that the "employment" can only be that of a person regularly employed by the employer. Even otherwise, assuming that there is an ambiguity or doubt, the contra proferentum Rule referred to hereinabove, must be applied, thus making it clear that such "employment" refers only to regular employees of the Institute, which, as we have seen hereinabove, Dr. Alpesh Gandhi was certainly not. Appeal allowed.
|