New India Assurance Company ... vs Sri M. Kamesh Kameswara Rao And 2 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4092 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4092 Tel
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2021

Telangana High Court

New India Assurance Company ... vs Sri M. Kamesh Kameswara Rao And 2 ... on 2 December, 2021

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.843 OF 2005


                         JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the insurance

company, i.e., Opposite Party No.2 against the award of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad in W.C. No.130 of 2003,

dt.22.12.2004.

2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are that one person by name

M. Duryodana worked as labourer on tractor-trailer bearing

Nos.AP24A 5151 and 5152 belonging to one Sri V. Narender Goud.

On 13.09.2003 at about 0020 hours, the deceased workman along with

others were proceeding in the tractor-trailer towards Lalbazaar,

Secunderabad with a load of mud in the vehicle and when the vehicle

reached near St. Ann's School, the driver of the tractor-trailer drove

the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased

lost balance and fell from the tractor and the tractor ran over him,

owing to which he died on the spot. The dependents of the labourer

filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation against Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the owner of the

CMA No.843 of 2005

vehicle and Opposite Party No.2, i.e., the insurance company.

Opposite Party No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner.

Opposite Party No.2, i.e., the appellant herein denied the employer-

employee relationship of the deceased and also submitted that the

insurance policy does not cover the risk of the labourer as except for

the driver, no additional premium has been paid to cover the risk of

the labourer. The Commissioner however observed that the labourer

was working with Opposite Party No.1 at the time of the accident and

he also observed that in the insurance policy, the premium has been

collected to cover risk of one employee. Taking the same into

consideration, the Commissioner has granted compensation of

Rs.2,47,861/- to the claimants. Aggrieved, the insurance company is

in appeal before this Court and the main ground raised is that the

policy does not cover the risk of the labourer as the insured did not

pay any additional premium and therefore even the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour should have held that the insurance

company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the insurance company, Sri T. Ramulu,

took the very same objection and Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned

counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the

CMA No.843 of 2005

insurance premium itself covered the employee other than the driver

and therefore, the compensation has been rightly paid.

4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that when the policy is covering the vehicle, it

includes the coverage for the driver and if any premium is paid for an

employee, it covers the person other than the driver. On this basis, the

Commissioner has clearly recorded that the premium is paid to cover

one employee. Similar matter has been considered by a coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of The National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Smt. Darla Appalanarasa and others1, wherein at para

13, it was held as under:

"13. This Court also notices that under Section 147 of MV Act there is a statutory coverage to a driver engaged in driving the vehicle. Therefore, there was no need for a specific premium to be paid to cover a driver as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The proviso to Section 147 also makes it clear that the labourer carried in a goods vehicle is also entitled to a statutory coverage. Even otherwise, this case is filed under Workmen's Compensation Act and there is a premium that is paid specifically to cover one employee. Section 147 of MV Act makes it clear that up to the limit provided for/covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is a statutory coverage for persons carried in goods carriage."