Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Sri P. Narasimha Anr on 31 December, 2021
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.816 OF 2007
AND
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.797 OF 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Appeals are filed by the insurance company against the
separate decrees and judgments dt.20.07.2006 passed in W.C.No.2 of
2004 and W.C.No.1 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for the
Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Patancheru.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that
respondent No.1 in C.M.A.No.816 of 2007 and respondent No.1 in
C.M.A.No.797 of 2007 are both labourers who were employed by
respondent No.2, the owner of lorry bearing No.AAT 4256. On
04.03.1998, an accident occurred, in the course of which respondent
Nos.1 in both the Appeals, sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly,
they filed Workmen's Compensation Cases before the Commissioner
for the Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of
Labour, Patancheru and the Commissioner awarded the compensation
of Rs.74,281/- in W.C.No.2 of 2004 and Rs.1,47,743/- in W.C.No.1 of
2004. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the insurance
company is in Appeal before this Court by raising the following
grounds:
C.M.A.No.816 & 797 of 2007
(1) The Judgment and decree passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen's
Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru is
contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(2) The Commissioner ought to have held that there is no liability on the
appellant when the owner of the vehicle failed to appear before the
Commissioner.
(3) The Commissioner erred in appreciating the evidence that the injury did
not result out of any use of the vehicle and only due to the negligence on
the part of the other lorry.
(4) The Commissioner erred in appreciating the fact that the risk of the
labourer is not covered under Ex.B-1, which was deposed by RW-1.
(5) The Commissioner ought to have fastened the liability on the owner of the
vehicle, as he did not pay any premium seeking coverage of the risk of the
labourer being carried in the vehicle.
(6) The Commissioner erred in appreciating the legal position as decided in
various authoritative judgments.
(7) The Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that the disability as
assessed by the Doctor is not in accordance with the provisions of the
W.C.Act.
(8) The Commissioner erred in fixing the income of the injured @ Rs.1299/-
per month.
(9) The Commissioner ought to have dismissed the application as the injury
did not happen out and in the course of employment of opposite party
No.1.
(10) The Commissioner ought to have held that there is no employee
and employer relationship between the injured and the owner of the
vehicle when there is no insurable interest.
(11) The Commissioner erred in fixing the income of the injured at
Rs.1299/- per month in the absence of any documentary evidence.
(12) The Commissioner erred in awarding the claim without any basis.
C.M.A.No.816 & 797 of 2007
(13) The Commissioner had awarded excessive compensation to the
respondents without any basis.
(14) Other grounds will be urged at the time of the hearing of the
appeal.
The above grounds are common in both the Appeals except for the
quantum awarded to each of the workman.
3. At the time of hearing, Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
counsel representing Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant in both the Appeals, submitted that as other issues are
already covered by various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex
Court in favour of the workmen, the appellant is mainly arguing on
Ground No.5, i.e., where extra premium has not been paid by the
owner of the vehicle, the insurance company is not liable. After
hearing both the parties, this Court finds that in similar matter in
C.M.A.No.800 of 2005, this Court vide the Judgement of even date,
has held as under:
"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
C.M.A.No.816 & 797 of 2007
paid any extra premium to cover the persons other than the driver
and the cleaner. In such cases, the owner 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......
7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
4. Since the facts and circumstances in these cases are also similar
to that of the above case i.e. C.M.A.No.800 of 2005 and for the said
reasons therein, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the
insurance company are dismissed. No costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these CMAs shall
also stand dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 31.12.2021
Svv
