Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Roopkanwar And Ors. on 13 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)ACC127, 2007ACJ1394, RLW2006(2)RAJ1034
Author: Bhagwati Prasad
Bench: Bhagwati Prasad
JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, C.J.
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.8.1990 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 86/1985 dismissing the appeal of the appellant Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act')
2. In view of the limited controversy involved in this appeal it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in details. Suffice it to mention that one Bhagwan Singh was employed as Khalasi on Truck No. RSN 5900 owned by Hari Singh. On 23.3.1981, driver of the truck Tulcha Ram, took it to workshop for repairs. While it was being moved inside, the stone pattis of the truck fell over him as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment and he remained hospitalised for about four months. On 8.7.1981 he filed claim petition under Rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 before the Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, seeking compensation of Rs. 23,520/- with costs, interest and penalty against said Hari Singh as well as the appellant Insurance Company with which the truck was insured. By award dated 16.2.1985 the Compensation Commissioner awarded Rs. 25,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from 26.3.1981. He also awarded Rs. 12,600/- as penalty. The appeal preferred by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, it has come in appeal to the Division Bench.
3. Mr. Arun Bhansali, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company does not dispute its liability by way of compensation as well as the interest in terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, correctness of the award is challenged only as regards penalty. It was submitted that in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi 1997 (8) SCC 1, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Insurance Company is not liable to re-imburse the penalty pursuant to award of the Compensation Commissioner under the Act.
4. Submission of the Counsel as proposition of law is well founded but in the facts of the case, it cannot be accepted. It is the admitted position that while insuring the vehicle in question the appellant had charged additional premium to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The question as to whether having charged additional premium, the Insurance Company can escape its liability as to penalty can be found in the decision appears to have been answered in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (supra), The judgment which is under challenge before us was sited on behalf of the appellant in support of his contention that the Insurance Company is liable to pay penalty. Distinguishing the judgment the Supreme Court observed:-
In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had to consider a situation where on payment of additional premium the insurance company had agreed in the light of Endorsement No. 16 of the policy to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under workmen's Compensation Act. In view of this contractual coverage of liability the insurance company in that case was held liable to meet the claim for penalty and interest as imposed upon the insured under Section 4-A(3) of the Compensation Act. This judgment proceeded on its own facts and was concerned with a situation converse to the one as was examined by the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Raju. In case decided by Karnataka High Court, as seen, earlier, there was an express exclusion of such liability of the insurance company. In the aforesaid case decided by the Rajasthan High Court there was an express inclusion of such liability for insurance company which had taken additional premium.
5. The Supreme Court thus appears to have taken the view in this very case that having accepted additional premium to cover the liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Insurance Company cannot deny the liability to re-imburse the penalty amount.
6. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant Company is not be liable to re-imburse the amount of penalty must be rejected.
7. Counsel for the appellant then submitted that since the occurrence took place inside a garage or workshop, and not at a public place the claimant was not entitled to compensation. Reference was made to the definition of 'public place' in Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to mean "a road, street way or other place, whether a thorough fare or not, to which the public have a right of access." The submission has to be summarily rejected. The claim was filed under Rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules and not under the Motor Vehicles Act and the question as to whether the accident took place at a public place or inside the premises of a garage or workshop is not at all relevant. What is relevant is whether claimants suffered injury in an accident "arising out of and in the course of his employment". As seen above, the accident took place at the time when the truck was being taken inside the workshop for repairs, the claimant was employed as Khalasi on the truck and, therefore, apparently he suffered injury in the course of and out of his employment. The submission of the Counsel, in the circumstances, deserves to be rejected.
8. Appeal under Section 30 of the Act lies only on a substantial question of law and this special appeal arising from an appealable order under Section 30 would stand on the same footing.
9. We find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.