THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.M.A. No. 360 of 2012
J U D G M E N T:
The 2nd opposite party - Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court questioning the Order dated 06.02.2012 made in W.C.No. 167 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's / Employees' Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, granting compensation in favour of the 1st respondent-applicant.
The brief facts are that the 1st respondent was working as a labourer on the lorry owned by the 2nd respondent. On 14.05.2007, the said lorry met with an accident resulting in the 1st respondent sustaining multiple injuries. The vehicle of the 2nd respondent is insured with the appellant and the policy is in currency and valid during the crucial period of accident. On an Application made by the 1st respondent under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as against his claim for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation, the Competent Authority determined a sum of Rs.1,88,641/-. On appreciation of evidence adduced, the Competent Authority returned a finding that there was an employer-employee relationship; the 1st respondent was working as laborer on the 2nd respondent lorry, engaged for loading and unloading the goods and that there was an accident which resulted in partial and permanent physical disability at 40% and loss of earning capacity at 65%. The said finding was based on the certificate issued by A.W.2, who opined so.
The appeal was on the following substantial questions of law: 2
1) The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that the doctor who treated the claimant as not examined.
2) The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that the doctor who examined the injured assessed the physical disability at 40% and loss of earning as 65% which is excessive.
3) The learned Commissioner erred in holding that there was an employer and employee relationship and the accident occurred during the course of employment.
Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel for the appellant, citing the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad v. Neeradi Kaspa Sattavva1, would submit that as extra premium was not paid for the labourer, the policy does not cover and as per IMT 39 Endorsement, only for loading and unloading purposes labourers were engaged and they were not expected to travel in the vehicle, thus, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, in the facts of the case, is not justifiable, hence, no compensation is payable by the Insurance Company.
The above contentions are refuted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. He further submits that it is well-settled that under the Motor Vehicles Act, up to six labourers are entitled to be covered and the coverage is a statutory liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act read with the Motor Vehicles Act.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah2, after referring to various judgments and by making a reference to proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court had held that the owner of the motor vehicle is not required 1 2009 (3) ALD 289 2 2011 ACJ 1868 3 to take out a policy to cover the risk of 1) his employees being carried in a goods vehicle; 2) his driver driving the vehicle; and 3) his conductor or examiner of tickets. Insurance of those employees is not made compulsory as they would be covered by the provisions of the Act. The competent Authority had also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Prembai Patel3) which is to the same effect. After making a reference to Section 147 and the Proviso, the Supreme Court held that "a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under Workmen's Compensation Act if the employee is such as described in sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c). The effect of this proviso is that if an insurance policy covers the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (I) to Section 147(1)(b), it will be a valid policy and would comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act".
In the case on hand, the finding of the Competent Authority is that the 1st respondent herein was engaged as a labourer on the vehicle and he suffered injuries during the course of employment. There is no material for this Court to give a contra finding and the judgment of this Court referred to by the appellant's counsel has no application, as, in the said case, the finding recorded was that 3 2005 ACJ 1323 (SC) 4 the injuries were suffered not in the course of employment and further, there was a prohibition to travel in the trolley.
In those circumstances, the well-considered order of the Competent Authority does not call for interference. The Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 3rd February 2021 ksld 5