United India Insruance Company ... vs Smt.Shaik Saidbi 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 948 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.767 of 2006



JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 14.03.2006 passed

by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in W.C.No.8 of 2005.

Brief facts of the case are that the deceased late Sri Jani Miya was

a workman employed by the 1st respondent on the tractor-trailer bearing

No.AP-24V-5684 and AP-24V-5685 on monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-; that

on 11.09.2004, the deceased was on duty on the tractor-trailer and was

proceeding from a quarry towards crushing machine with a load of big

concrete stone in the vehicle and when the vehicle and when the vehicle

reached near Sri Vani Crushing Machine, the driver drove it in a rash and

negligent manner, thereby lost control of the vehicle and dashed against

the Crushing Machine due to which the concrete stone broken into

pieces, and the deceased fell down from the vehicle and sustained

grievous injury to his head and while he was being shifted to the hospital

at Hyderabad, he succumbed to the injury on the way to the hospital.

The Police, Pochampally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.57

of 2004. The tractor-trailer was insured with the 2nd respondent. The

wife and minor son of the deceased workmen filed the claim petition

before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

On behalf of the applicants/claimants, AW.1 was examined, and

Exs.A1 to A18 were marked; and on behalf of the 2nd respondent

insurance company, no one was examined, however, Ex.B1 copy of

insurance policy was marked.

The Commissioner, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, had awarded a compensation of 2 cma_767_2006 CKR, J

Rs.2,28,831/- holding the respondent No.1 (owner of the tractor-trailer)

and respondent No.2 (insurance company) jointly and severally liable to

pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company

filed the present appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the insurance policy does not cover unnamed employee.

There being no dispute that the insurance policy covers the driver

and one employee, the fact of not naming the other employee as a

beneficiary of the insurance policy can never be a ground for rejection of

the claim of the claimants. It may be noted that the insurance coverage

is with respect to the employer and not for the employee. In that view of

the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

though appears to be attractive the same does not hold water.

In those circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

                                              ____________________
                                              CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
24th March, 2021

ksm
                       3                   cma_767_2006
                                                CKR, J




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM




               C.M.A.No.767 of 2006




                  24th March, 2021



ksm