Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Syed Anwar Ali And Anr. on 17 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(6)ALD174
Author: B. Seshasayana Reddy
Bench: B. Seshasayana Reddy
ORDER
B. Seshasayana Reddy. J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the Order dated 23-5-1997 passed in W.C.No.B1/783 of 1995 N.F. on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.
2. The applicant in W.C.No.B1/783 of 1995 N.F. also filed Cross Objections dissatisfied with the quantum of amount awarded to him as compensation.
3. The applicant was the second driver of the vehicle bearing No. 4122 API. The said vehicle involved in an accident on 29-7-1994 while it was proceeding towards Hyderabad and when it reached the outskirts of Adloor, Yellareddy Village. The vehicle is owned by the second respondent herein. In the said accident, the applicant sustained fracture injuries for which he took treatment in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. He filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
4. The owner of the vehicle viz., Chitikanti Ramesh filed a counter stating that he insured the vehicle with the appellant-United India Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the injured.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed counter disputing its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the applicant was a second driver and therefore, his risk was not covered under the policy.
6. The learned Commissioner framed the following two issues for consideration:
1. Whether the accident was occurred during the course of employment of the applicant?
2. To what relief the applicant is entitled to?
The applicant examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr. Devidas as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, one B. Madhusudhan Rao was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 copy of the policy through him. On considering the evidence on record and on hearing both the parties, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 58,242/- by an order dated 23-5-1997 to the applicant and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the same within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Assailing the order dated 23-5-1997 passed in W.C.No. B1/783 of 1995 N.F., the Insurance Company has filed this C.M.A. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the applicant filed cross objections.
7. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company before me is that the first respondent herein (applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad) was the second driver in the crime vehicle and therefore, his risk was not covered under Ex.B1 policy. He referred to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short " the Act") in support of his contention. Whereas it is contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent-applicant that the risk of the second driver was also covered under Ex.Bl policy. He placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kashim, 1996 (2) ACJ 928.
2. National Insurance Company Limited v. Thimmareddy, 1999 (1) ACJ 399, and
3. Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1998(1) ACJ 1.
In the first cited decision i.e., Oriental Insurance, Company's case (supra), the Karnataka High Court held that the risk of the second driver is also covered under the policy, since he was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity as an employee of the owner of the vehicle in the course of employment.
In the second cited decision i.e., National Insurance Company's case (supra), the Karnataka High Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the second driver since he was an employee of the owner of the vehicle travelling in the course of employment.
8. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. Sub-section (1) of Section 147 along with its proviso is relevant for our present purpose and it is extracted as under:
147, Requirements of policies and limits of liability :--In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which,--
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer, and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2)--
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
"Provided that a policy shall not be required
(i) to cover liability in respect of the 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 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee:
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle; or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
Explanation :--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place."
Sub-clause (b) of Section 147(1) read with the proviso lays down a statutory scheme of compulsory coverage of the liability incurred by the employer vis-a-vis his employee when they sustain injuries by the use of motor vehicles during their employment and on account of the motor accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. But the statutory coverage for such liability would be limited to the extent of liability of the insured employer arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death or bodily injury to such employees. As the motor accident resulted in fatal injuries to the employees who were either driving or being carried in the goods carriage as employees, whatever liability was incurred by the insured owners of good vehicles in connection with proceedings arising out of the compensation Act was covered by the statutory liability of the Insurance Company.
9. It is expedient from the above referred proviso to Section 147 of the Act that the second driver can be treated as the person travelling during the course of employment at the time of the accident and thus, the policy issued by the Insurance Company in respect of the vehicle covers his risk also. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. With regard to the cross objections filed by the applicant, he is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the awarded amount since the accident occurred prior to 15-9-1995 under Section 4(A)(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. To that extent the cross objections are allowed.
10. In the result, the C.M.A. fails and is dismissed while the cross objections are allowed in part granting interest at 6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the award till the date of deposit.