THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.767 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 14.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in W.C.No.8 of 2005.
Brief facts of the case are that the deceased late Sri Jani Miya was a workman employed by the 1st respondent on the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-24V-5684 and AP-24V-5685 on monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-; that on 11.09.2004, the deceased was on duty on the tractor-trailer and was proceeding from a quarry towards crushing machine with a load of big concrete stone in the vehicle and when the vehicle and when the vehicle reached near Sri Vani Crushing Machine, the driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner, thereby lost control of the vehicle and dashed against the Crushing Machine due to which the concrete stone broken into pieces, and the deceased fell down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injury to his head and while he was being shifted to the hospital at Hyderabad, he succumbed to the injury on the way to the hospital. The Police, Pochampally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2004. The tractor-trailer was insured with the 2nd respondent. The wife and minor son of the deceased workmen filed the claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.
On behalf of the applicants/claimants, AW.1 was examined, and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked; and on behalf of the 2nd respondent insurance company, no one was examined, however, Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked.
The Commissioner, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, had awarded a compensation of 2 cma_767_2006 CKR, J Rs.2,28,831/- holding the respondent No.1 (owner of the tractor-trailer) and respondent No.2 (insurance company) jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed the present appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance policy does not cover unnamed employee.
There being no dispute that the insurance policy covers the driver and one employee, the fact of not naming the other employee as a beneficiary of the insurance policy can never be a ground for rejection of the claim of the claimants. It may be noted that the insurance coverage is with respect to the employer and not for the employee. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant though appears to be attractive the same does not hold water.
In those circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
24th March, 2021
ksm
3 cma_767_2006
CKR, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.M.A.No.767 of 2006
24th March, 2021
ksm