Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Sunita Ramesh Asole And Ors on 11 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 1010/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2015
WITH CA/6634/2012
United India Insurance Company Ltd
Through its Divisional Office,
Divisional Manager, Aurangabad. = APPELLANT
(Orig. Respdt. No.2)
VERSUS
1)
Sunita w/o Ramesh Asole,
Age: 25 Yrs., occu. Household,
R/o Bhatsawangi, Tq.Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
2) Maroti s/o Ramesh Asole,
Age: 3 Yrs., occ. Nil.
R/o Bhatsawangi, Tq.Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
3) Payal D/o Ramesh Asole,
Age: 1 year, occu. Ni,l.
R/o Bhatsawangi, Tq.Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
4) Anjanabai w/o Yeshwantrao Asole
Age: 55 Yrs., occu. Household,
R/o Bhatsawangi, Tq.Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:54:49 :::
2 FA 1010/2015
5) Yeshwantrao s/o Jaiwantrao Asole
Age: 60 Yrs., occu. Nil
R/o Bhatsawangi, Tq.Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
6) Tanaji s/o Kiranrao Bende
Age: Major, occu. Busines,
R/o Palsi, Tq.Basmath,
District Hingoli. = RESPONDENETS
ig (Resp. Nos.1 to 5 are
orig. claimants; Resp.
No.6 orig.Resp.)
Mr. AS Usmanpurkar, Adv. h/for Mr. Kulkarni
Sudhir V.Advocate for Appellant;
Mr. Chavan Sudhir K. Adv. For Resp.Nos.1 To 5;
Mr. RB Bhosale, Adv. For Respondent No.6.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
1 st
April,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. By consent, taken up for final
disposal.
2) The insurance company has filed the
present appeal taking exception to the Judgment
3 FA 1010/2015
and Award passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, at Basmathnagar (for short, the
Tribunal) in MACP No. 29/2009 decided on
1.12.2011. The aforesaid claim petition was filed
by the respondents herein, claiming compensation
on account of death of one Ramesh Asole, who died
in a motor accident happened on 15.12.2008 having
involvement of a TATA truck bearing registration
No. MGH-31-W-8739. The learned Tribunal has
awarded the compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- to the
respondents inclusive of NFL compensation.
3) In the present appeal though several
grounds are mentioned in challenge to the
impugned Judgment and Award, during the course of
the arguments Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel
appearing for the insurance company, has pressed
only one ground that though the risk of the
deceased was not covered under the insurance
policy, the Tribunal has held the insurance
company liable for payment of compensation to the
legal heirs of the said deceased. The learned
4 FA 1010/2015
Counsel submitted that the insurance policy of
the offending vehicle covers the risk of only
seven persons; whereas total eight claim
petitions have been filed; some under the
provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and some
under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.
4) The learned Counsel for the respondents,
i.e. original claimants, brought to my notice
that out of total eight claim petitions stated to
have been filed arising out of the accident in
question, six claim petitions were filed under
the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act;
whereas two were filed under the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel
further submitted that the claim petitions which
were filed under the provisions of Workmen's
Compensation Act were decided in favour of the
respective claimants and the appeals filed
against the Awards passed in the said matters
have been dismissed by this court. The learned
counsel has placed on record a copy of the common
5 FA 1010/2015
judgment delivered by this court in First Appeal
No. 916/2012 with connected appeals. The learned
Counsel further submitted that one claim petition
filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act
is still pending before the Tribunal.
5) The facts, stated aforesaid, by the
learned counsel appearing for the original
claimants have not been disputed by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance
company.
6) I do not find any substance in the
argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-
insurance company that it was liable to cover the
risk of only seven employees. As provided under
Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a
policy of insurance must be a policy which shall
cover the liability of the employee arising under
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect
of the death of or bodily injury to any such
employee during the course of his employment.
6 FA 1010/2015
That is the reason that the insurance company has
complied with the Awards passed in about six
claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act. For
covering the risk of other employees, the owner
has paid extra premium of Rs.175/-. The said fact
has come on record. Thus, the contention of the
insurance company cannot be accepted that its
liability was restricted to cover the risk of
only seven employees. I do not find that the
Tribunal has committed any error in awarding the
compensation to the present claimants. The appeal
filed by the insurance company is devoid of any
substance. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed without any
order as to the costs.
ii) Civil Application stands disposed of.
sd/-
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
1.4.2016
