The New India Assurance Company ... vs Sri V. Krishna And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 244 Tel

     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                     C.M.A. No. 360 of 2012

J U D G M E N T:

The 2nd opposite party - Insurance Company is the appellant

before this Court questioning the Order dated 06.02.2012 made in

W.C.No. 167 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for

Workmen's / Employees' Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of

Labour-I, Hyderabad, granting compensation in favour of the 1st

respondent-applicant.

The brief facts are that the 1st respondent was working as a

labourer on the lorry owned by the 2nd respondent. On

14.05.2007, the said lorry met with an accident resulting in the 1st

respondent sustaining multiple injuries. The vehicle of the 2nd

respondent is insured with the appellant and the policy is in

currency and valid during the crucial period of accident. On an

Application made by the 1st respondent under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, as against his claim for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as

compensation, the Competent Authority determined a sum of

Rs.1,88,641/-. On appreciation of evidence adduced, the

Competent Authority returned a finding that there was an

employer-employee relationship; the 1st respondent was working as

laborer on the 2nd respondent lorry, engaged for loading and

unloading the goods and that there was an accident which resulted

in partial and permanent physical disability at 40% and loss of

earning capacity at 65%. The said finding was based on the

certificate issued by A.W.2, who opined so.

The appeal was on the following substantial questions of law:

1) The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that the doctor who treated the claimant as not examined.

2) The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that the doctor who examined the injured assessed the physical disability at 40% and loss of earning as 65% which is excessive.

3) The learned Commissioner erred in holding that there was an employer and employee relationship and the accident occurred during the course of employment.

Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel for the appellant,

citing the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad v. Neeradi Kaspa

Sattavva1, would submit that as extra premium was not paid for

the labourer, the policy does not cover and as per IMT 39

Endorsement, only for loading and unloading purposes labourers

were engaged and they were not expected to travel in the vehicle,

thus, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, in the facts

of the case, is not justifiable, hence, no compensation is payable by

the Insurance Company.

The above contentions are refuted by the learned counsel for

the 1st respondent. He further submits that it is well-settled that

under the Motor Vehicles Act, up to six labourers are entitled to be

covered and the coverage is a statutory liability under the

Workmen's Compensation Act read with the Motor Vehicles Act.

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Pujala Chenchu

Nagaiah2, after referring to various judgments and by making a

reference to proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this

Court had held that the owner of the motor vehicle is not required

2009 (3) ALD 289

2011 ACJ 1868

to take out a policy to cover the risk of 1) his employees being

carried in a goods vehicle; 2) his driver driving the vehicle; and 3)

his conductor or examiner of tickets. Insurance of those employees

is not made compulsory as they would be covered by the provisions

of the Act. The competent Authority had also referred to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.

V. Prembai Patel3) which is to the same effect. After making a

reference to Section 147 and the Proviso, the Supreme Court held

that "a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of

death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the

employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily

injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the

course of his employment other than a liability arising under

Workmen's Compensation Act if the employee is such as described

in sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c). The effect of this proviso is that if an

insurance policy covers the liability under the Workmen's

Compensation Act in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such

employee as is described in sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (I)

to Section 147(1)(b), it will be a valid policy and would comply with

the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act".

In the case on hand, the finding of the Competent Authority

is that the 1st respondent herein was engaged as a labourer on the

vehicle and he suffered injuries during the course of employment.

There is no material for this Court to give a contra finding and the

judgment of this Court referred to by the appellant's counsel has

no application, as, in the said case, the finding recorded was that

2005 ACJ 1323 (SC)

the injuries were suffered not in the course of employment and

further, there was a prohibition to travel in the trolley.

In those circumstances, the well-considered order of the

Competent Authority does not call for interference. The Appeal is

therefore, dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 3rd February 2021

ksld