Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Shakila And Others vs Veer Singh And Others on 7 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2001)ACC189, 2001ACJ1309, 2001(1)WLC547, 2001(2)WLN360
ORDER Hon'ble Verma, J.
(1) The present Misc. Appeal No. 1030/2000 has been preferred against the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act by the dependants of workman Nijamuddin @ Nijju Khan. The connected appeal, which is under defect, has been preferred by Ihe employer Veer Singh.
(2). For Ihe reason that both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident and relating to same parties, therefore, il was ordered that the appeal filed by the employer be attached and bolh the appeals are being decided by this common order. The registry shall put regular number of appeal as the formal defects are waived and also for the reason that decision of the appeal No- 1030/2000 shall also be applicable to Ihe appeal filed by employer.
(3). The deceased Nijamuddin was admittedly an employee of employer Veer Singh, who was employed as driver of the truck No. RJ-01/G-790, while Nijamuddin was on duty on 17.1.99 and under Ihe employment of Veer Singh, he was detailed lo get the truck load wilh rocky stones from a mine situaled at Balriya ki Pahart. During the process of loading stones, he was hit upon his head by a stone which ultimately resulted in his death. The FIR was also registered and notice was issued to owner and he was apprised about the accidenl and his consequential liability. The dependants of the employee filed the claim application before the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act.
(4). After framing the relevant issues in regard to deceased having died while being in employment; age, and salary of the deceased employee; dependancy of claimants; and entitlement of claimants to the compensation, after recording the evidence of witnesses, the Commissioner decided all the issues in favour of claimant, but had exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability only on the ground that at the time of accident, the truck was not in motion and was in stationary position that is according to the Commissioner, even though the workman was on duty but he sustained the injury while the truck was being loaded and it was in stationary position. The Insurance Company has been exonerated on the ground that the workman has not sustained the injury while the truck was in motion and it was in stationary position. The Commissioner was of the opinion that ever; the truck driver died while on duty under the employment, but until and unless he dies in moving truck, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as per policy.
(5). Both the appeals have been filed by claimants as well as employer for setting aside and modifying the order of the Commissioner with the prayer that if the truck was insured under the Act and the premium was paid for that purpose and if the driver of truck died while on duty and under employment, it makes no difference whether he dies in moving truck or when the material was being loaded in the truck.
(6). On the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner had passed the following order:-
1. The deceased at the lime of accident was on duty and under the employment of employer.
2. The deceased was of the age of 30 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/-per month.
3. The claimants were dependants of the deceased.
4. The truck was not in motion and the truck was in stalionary position as the stones were being loaded and the truck had not met with any accident and that the deceased had not died in moving truck, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation.
5. On the quantum of compensation the Commissioner held that the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation Rs. 2,07,980/-.
(7). Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Insurance company could not have been exonerated for the reason that the truck was insured and the premium was paid and the workman had died while on duly and the truck was being loaded, therefore, the Insurance company was liable to pay the compensation.
(8). Reliance is placed on the judgment of High Court of Gauhati in case of Tlje North Goalpara Motor Worker's Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (1). Wherein it has been held that use of motor vehicle covers accidents which occur both when vehicle was in motion as also when it is stationary. The accident had arisen out of use of vehicle in question, it was held that the Insurer cannot avoid its liability of payment of compensation.
(9). Yet in another case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lakshmi (2), the injury sustained on account of a fertilizer bag fallin upon in the process of unloading it from a stationary lorry, the Kerala High Court had held that it is an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The basis requirement of such claim is only that it sould arise out of the use of motor vehicle. There is no warrant for the contention that the accident should take place at a time when the vehicle was in motion or the accident has resulted in damage to the vehicle. All that is required is that there should be an accident, viz. something unexpected and unintended and that should arise out of the user of the vehicle.
(10). Similar is the law laid down by this court in case of Ram Chandra and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others (3), to the effect that the liability cannot be confined to the period it is no motion only, i.e. in Ihe moving state, because it may be in the use while it is stalionary, also.
(11). In case of Rita Devi (Smt.) and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (4), the autorickshaw was hired by certain persons with the object to steal the vehicle killing the driver, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the murder of the driver was an accidental murder and the legal representatives of deceased driver were held entitled to compensation for his death. It was held by the Apex Court that the stealing of the autorickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing of the authorickshaw was only incidental to the act of stealing of the authorickshaw. Therefore, the Apex court held that death was caused accidentally in Ihe process of committing theft of Ihe autorickshaw, therefore, Ihe decision of Tribunal was right to come to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation as examined by them and the judgment of High court was wrong in reversing the judgment of Tribunal and coming to the conclusion that [he death was not caused by an accidenl involving the use of motor vehicle. It was observed Ihat the Acts viz. the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to the victims of the accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under Ihat Act while the relief provided under Chapter X to XII of Ihe Motor Vehicles Act is available Io all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. This conclusion is supported by Sec. 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act under which, it is open to the claimants either Io proceed to claim compensalion under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of Ihe objects of the two enactmenls clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enaclments operating in the same field, hence the judicially accepted interpretation of the word 'death' in the Workmen's Compensation Act is certainly applicable to the interpretation of the word 'death' in the Motor Vehicles Act also.
(12). In the case of Rita Devi (supra), the High Courl had come to the conclusion that there was no motor accidenl as contemplated under the Act and the case was that of murder and not of accidenl, therefore, no petition for compensation was maintainable. The deceased wtas employed to drive autorickshaw, was duty bound Eo have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty if Ihe passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the autorickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing autorickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver then il cannot but be said Ihat the death so caused to Ihe driver of Ihe authorickshaw was an accidental murder. The Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation.
(13). The present case relates to compensation Io be paid under Workmen Compensation Act relying on Ihe principles as laid down in the case of Rita Devi (supra). The insurance company cannot escape from its liability. The death in whatever manner while on duty and during employment renders the employer liable to pay compensation under Workmen Compensation Act and if the vehicle is insured for the Workmen Compensalion Act as well, in that situation whatever the liability was incurred by the employer shall automatically shifted Io the insurer. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company is bound to be held liable for payment of compensa-tion under the Workmen Compensalion Act.
(14). For the reasons and discussions above, Ihe order dated 15.5.2000 passed by Ihe Authority, Workmen Compensation Act is modified to the exlenl that the Insurance Company is also liable to be paid the compensation. The compensation and the interest thereon as assessed shall be payable by the Insurance Company. The cost of Rs. 5,000/- is also imposed on the Insurance Company Io be paid to claimants by the Insurance Company. The cost shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period two months.
(15). It has been submilted thai the amount of compensation has already been deposited by the employer. The same shall be disbursed to claimants forthwith, if not released already. However, the employer shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company.
(16). For the reasons and discussions above both the Misc. Appeals are allowed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to claimants by the Insurance Company.