The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Shaik Noorjahan Begum 6 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4704 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.800 OF 2005


                          JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India

Assurance Company Limited against the award passed by the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda in W.C.No.150 of 2003

dt.30.04.2004.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are that one Sri

Shaik Moulana worked as labourer on the tractor bearing No.AP 36T

5421. On 20.12.2002 at about 4.00 AM, when he was returning from

Kodad to Janareddynagar in the tractor after completion of repairs of

the tractor, there was an accident and the labourer died on the spot.

The dependents of the deceased filed claim petition before the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation stating that the deceased

was 32 years old and was in receipt of Rs.3,000/- per month towards

wages. The Opposite Party No.2-insurance company had contended

before the Commissioner that the accident had occurred at 4.00 A.M.

on 20.12.2002 and there was no need for the labourer to be there on

the tractor. The Commissioner however did not agree with this

contention of Opposite Party No.2 and held that there was no rule that

the vehicles could not be plied in the nights or that the labourers need C.M.A.No.800 of 2005

not be with the vehicles in the night. He also observed that the

deceased accompanied the tractor to help the driver in getting it

repaired. As regards the second objection of the Opposite Party No.2

that the labourers are not covered under the policy and hence the

insurance company is not responsible for the payment of

compensation, the Commissioner observed that the policy shows that

the premium of Rs.510/- was collected for the trailor and the policy

does not specify any condition of non-coverage of employees,

engaged on the tractor. He thus rejected the second objection also of

the Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly he awarded a compensation

of Rs.2,09,660/- for the death of the deceased in the accident.

3. The insurance company has filed this Appeal stating that the

insurance policy of Opposite Party No.1 does not cover the risk of the

labourer as no additional premium was paid for coverage of the

labourer. The appellant places reliance upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Jugal Kishore and others1 and also the case of

Ramashrya Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Sri P.

Ramulu, also placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court for

the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager,

1988 (1) ACJ 270

2003 (3) ACJ 1550 : (2003) 10 SCC 664 C.M.A.No.800 of 2005

Kurnool Vs. Kurva Nagamma and others3, wherein after

considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ramashrya Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2

supra), the High Court has held that while Motor Vehicles Act

protects the interests of the driver of every motor vehicle, the

Conductor or Ticket Examiner of a public service vehicle and an

employee of a goods carriage vehicle, no such protection is available

to any other category of employees or persons unless their risk is

covered by payment of premium. In the said case, the Hon'ble High

Court also considered that the policy required payment of Rs.15/- for

covering the risk of each person other than the driver and cleaner.

Since no such premium was paid, it was held that the policy did not

cover the labourers. Similar decision was also given in the case of

Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Nizamabad Vs. Zaheer Ahmed and others4, wherein it was held

that where insurance policy shows that the owner of the lorry paid

premium only for two persons, i.e., for driver and cleaner being the

two employees covered by the policy under the provisions of Section

147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the injured claimants i.e., labourers

are not covered by the policy. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of

the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

2015 (1) ALT 661

2015 (2) ALT 154 C.M.A.No.800 of 2005

5. Learned counsel for the claimants, Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, on

the other hand, has filed a copy of the insurance policy to suggest that

the premium was paid for the trailor which also covers the labourers

who were on the trailor. He also placed reliance upon the decision of

this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Vs.

Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah and others5, wherein it was held that the

contention of the appellant insurance company that it is not under

obligation to cover liability arising out of death or bodily injuries to a

cleaner, unless extra premium is paid, cannot be accepted.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds that the

decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Kadapa Vs. Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah and others (5 supra) is

distinguishable on facts as in that case the deceased was a cleaner of

the vehicle, whereas in the case on hand, the deceased was a labourer

and his case is clearly covered by the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Jugal Kishore and others (1 supra) as well as the

decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Kadapa Vs. Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah and others (5 supra).

Admittedly, in this case, the policy did not include the risk of the

labourer and the owner had not paid any extra premium to cover the

persons other than the driver and the cleaner. In such cases, the owner

2011 (1) ALD 596 C.M.A.No.800 of 2005

of the vehicle shall be responsible for the injury caused to the third

party. However, the insurance company would have to make the

payment of compensation to the claimants under the Workmen's

Compensation and thereafter recover from the owner of the vehicle,

who has breached the conditions of the policy, as held by this Court

in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Vs. Pujala

Chenchu Nagaiah and others (5 supra). Therefore, the Appeal of

the insurance company as against respondents 1 to 6 is dismissed. As

against respondent No.7 is concerned, from the copy of the insurance

policy, the trailor is insured as a non-agricultural vehicle and

therefore, there is no violation of any of the terms and conditions of

the policy. Therefore, the appeal against respondent No.7 is also

dismissed.

7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No

order as to costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 31.12.2021 Svv