Telangana High Court
New India Assurance Company Limited, vs Sri M. Kamesh Kameswara Rao And 2 Others on 2 December, 2021
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.843 OF 2005
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the insurance company, i.e., Opposite Party No.2 against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad in W.C. No.130 of 2003, dt.22.12.2004.
2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are that one person by name M. Duryodana worked as labourer on tractor-trailer bearing Nos.AP24A 5151 and 5152 belonging to one Sri V. Narender Goud. On 13.09.2003 at about 0020 hours, the deceased workman along with others were proceeding in the tractor-trailer towards Lalbazaar, Secunderabad with a load of mud in the vehicle and when the vehicle reached near St. Ann's School, the driver of the tractor-trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased lost balance and fell from the tractor and the tractor ran over him, owing to which he died on the spot. The dependents of the labourer filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation against Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the owner of the 2 CMA No.843 of 2005 vehicle and Opposite Party No.2, i.e., the insurance company. Opposite Party No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner. Opposite Party No.2, i.e., the appellant herein denied the employer- employee relationship of the deceased and also submitted that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the labourer as except for the driver, no additional premium has been paid to cover the risk of the labourer. The Commissioner however observed that the labourer was working with Opposite Party No.1 at the time of the accident and he also observed that in the insurance policy, the premium has been collected to cover risk of one employee. Taking the same into consideration, the Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs.2,47,861/- to the claimants. Aggrieved, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court and the main ground raised is that the policy does not cover the risk of the labourer as the insured did not pay any additional premium and therefore even the Assistant Commissioner of Labour should have held that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the insurance company, Sri T. Ramulu, took the very same objection and Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 3 CMA No.843 of 2005 insurance premium itself covered the employee other than the driver and therefore, the compensation has been rightly paid.
4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that when the policy is covering the vehicle, it includes the coverage for the driver and if any premium is paid for an employee, it covers the person other than the driver. On this basis, the Commissioner has clearly recorded that the premium is paid to cover one employee. Similar matter has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Darla Appalanarasa and others1, wherein at para 13, it was held as under:
"13. This Court also notices that under Section 147 of MV Act there is a statutory coverage to a driver engaged in driving the vehicle. Therefore, there was no need for a specific premium to be paid to cover a driver as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The proviso to Section 147 also makes it clear that the labourer carried in a goods vehicle is also entitled to a statutory coverage. Even otherwise, this case is filed under Workmen's Compensation Act and there is a premium that is paid specifically to cover one employee. Section 147 of MV Act makes it clear that up to the limit provided for/covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is a statutory coverage for persons carried in goods carriage."1
C.M.A.No.966 of 2006 on the file of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court dt.12.06.2018 4 CMA No.843 of 2005
5. In view of the above decision, the contention of the insurance company is not sustainable.
6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Dt.02.12.2021 Svv