National Insurance Company vs M.Laxminarasamma Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1512 AP

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

          CIVIL MSIECLLANEOUS APPEAL No.931 of 2009

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation cum Assistant Commissioner

of Labour, Ananthapur in W.C.No.47 of 2004 dated 17.10.2005.

2. The 2nd respondent before the Commissioner is the appellant.

The applicant and the 1st respondent before the Commissioner are the

respondents 1 and 2 respectively herein.

3. The applicant is the mother of Sri M.Narapa Reddy. He died in

an accident on 21.07.2004 at about 7.45 p.m. when the mini lorry AP

02U-4140 in which he was travelling as a labourer and which belonged to

the 2nd respondent, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against a stationery lorry on NH7 in between Ananthapur and

Gooty. He suffered serious injuries in the accident and while undergoing

treatment in Government General Hospital, Anantapur, he died. He was

earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day and was 25 years old on the date of

the accident.

4. Stating that the deceased Narapa Reddy was working as a

labourer for the 2nd respondent owner of this Eicher van and that he died

during the in the course of employment, a claim for compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- was made by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent

and the appellant respectively, before the Commissioner.

5. The 2nd respondent did not choose to contest the claim.

Whereas the appellant resisted the claim mainly on the ground that the

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

contract of insurance did not cover the liability with reference to the

labourers travelling in the vehicle in question while disputing the entire

claim.

6. On the material and evidence, the Commissioner settled the

following issues for enquiry:

"1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death?

2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the deceased workman at the time of accident?

4. What is the amount of compensation payable?

5. Who are liable to pay compensation?"

7. Before the Commissioner, the 1st respondent examined herself

as A.W.1 and relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 while the appellant examined

R.W.1, who was Senior Assistant in its office at Anantapur, while relying

on Ex.B1 Insurance Policy.

8. Basing on the material, the Commissioner accepted the claim

and having regard to the age of the deceased and minimum wages

payable, applying appropriate factor awarded a compensation of

Rs.2,50,856/- and with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the

accident till the date of realisation against the 2nd respondent and the

appellant respectively. However, the liability of the appellant to pay

interest on the compensation so awarded was excluded.

9. It is against this award, the present appeal is preferred.

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

10. The substantial question of law raised in this case is as follows:

"Whether the Commissioner is justified in fastening liability on the appellant Insurance Company inspite of the fact and evidence on record that there is no policy coverage for coolies in the vehicle?"

11. Heard Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant,

and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent.

12. Substantial question of law, is now considered for

determination.

13. The appellant did not question the nature of accident in this

appeal or the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

Only objection of the appellant is in respect of the liability fastened on it

contending that Ex.B1 insurance policy did not cover the risk relating to

labourers travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

14. The relationship of the deceased Narapa Reddy and the 2nd

respondent being the servant and master respectively was considered by

the Commissioner basing on the evidence of the applicant as A.W.1 and

Ex.A1 as well as Ex.A2, which are copies of FIR and inquest report which

are investigation records maintained by the police at Singanamala police

Station in Cr.No.65 of 2004 registered against the vehicle belonging to the

2nd respondent. They clearly make out that the deceased was travelling in

the vehicle in question as a labourer and muskmelon fruit was being

collected at different places, by the time of the accident. According to the

1st respondent as A.W.1, the deceased started working on the offending

vehicle since about 6 months prior to the accident.

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

15. The 2nd respondent did not choose to contest this claim and

the version of the 1st respondent in this context when supported by Ex.A1

and Ex.A2, in these circumstances, requires acceptance. It was so done by

the commissioner. In the presence of such material, denial of such

relationship between the deceased and the 2nd respondent, cannot stand.

Thus, the jurisdictional issue to attract section 3 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act is proved.

16. In this backdrop, when the deceased was working for the 2nd

respondent, when Ex.B1 is the policy which was covering the risk in

relation to the vehicle in question belonging to the 2nd respondent, the

question raised by the appellant requires consideration.

17. Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent objected maintainability of this appeal on the ground that in

terms of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, there should be

a substantial question of law raised by the appellant for this purpose and

the question so raised by the appellant did not meet the requirement.

18. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant, referring

to the objection the insurer has against the order of the Commissioner

stated that when it is disputing its liability in terms of Section 147(1)(b) of

the M.V.Act, there is a serious question of law for consideration of this

Court in this context.

19. The question raised by the appellant in this appeal is

apparently based more on facts than law. Yet, the question of coverage of

policy is required to be considered and particularly when the claim is

made basing on the relationship of master and servant between the

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

deceased and the 2nd respondent in terms if to attract Section 147(1)(b)

of the M.V.Act.

20. Essential consideration thereunder is as to whether liability or

risk has to be covered by means of a special contract, in respect of a

labourer working on the vehicle in question. Therefore, to that extent the

contention of the appellant has to be accepted holding that it is a question

of substantial nature and law to be considered in this appeal.

21. In terms of Ex.B1 policy, separate coverage is not necessary

when Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V.Act is applied. Undoubtedly, the

insurance policy under Ex.B1 is comprehensive in nature and for good

carrying commercial vehicle.

22. The learned counsel for the insurer Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam relying

on The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lodya Shankar and

others1 contended that in the absence of specific contract to cover the

liability of the deceased, who was a labourer on the offending vehicle at

the time of the accident, the appellant cannot be made liable. In terms of

Section 147(1) of the M.V.Act as is observed in the above ruling relied on

for the appellant, the owner of the vehicle is not required to take out a

policy to cover the risk of his labourer being carried in the goods vehicle.

In such an event when the jural relationship of the deceased and the 2nd

respondent as 'servant and master' is established, when the purpose of

his presence on the vehicle in question at the time of the accident was

during and the in the course of his employment for the 2nd respondent,

2004(3) ALD 400

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

the appellant cannot contend that it is not liable to satisfy the claim of the

1st respondent. The nature of the policy as already discussed is

comprehensive in nature.

23. It is contended by Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned

counsel for the 1st respondent that the Commissioner had taken into

consideration all the parameters correctly and compensation awarded is

appropriate. The Commissioner took into consideration the minimum

wages payable to the deceased considering him as a labourer working on

the offending vehicle for the 2nd respondent. Age of the deceased was

also considered at 25 years at the time of the accident viz., on

21.07.2004. Appropriate factor applicable to him having regard to the age

and basing on G.O.Ms.No.30, Labour, Employment Technical and

Factories (Labour-II) Department, dated 27.07.2000, minimum wages at

Rs.2313/- were considered. Factor 216.91 was applied and thus

compensation was awarded making both the appellant and the 2nd

respondent liable jointly and severally.

24. There are no reasons warranting interference with the findings

so recorded by the Commissioner. When the liability of the appellant thus

is attracted, it is bound to make good the compensation to the extent

payable. Therefore, the order under appeal has to be confirmed.

25. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed

confirming the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur dated 17.10.2005 in

W.C.No.47 of 2004. No costs. The Commissioner is directed to release the

balance amount if any deposited to the credit of this matter before him in

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

view of dismissal of this appeal to the 1st respondent without insisting for

security.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.

________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt:15.03.2021 RR

MVR, J CMA No.931 of 2009

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 931 of 2009

Dt:15.03.2021

RR