Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Dujiya Bai And Ors. on 10 December, 1982
JUDGMENT S.S. Sharma, J.
1. This appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jabalpur, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against an order dated January 12, 1982, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jabalpur, in Case No. 34 of 1980.
2. One Asharam was employed on the truck belonging to respondent No. 5, Brijendra Kumar Tiwar. According to the claimants, in an accident, during the course of and arising out of employment, Asharam received fatal injuries. Asharam having died, his widow and minor children filed a claim petition. Asharam's monthly wages were Rs. 120. The appellant was admittedly the insurer. The Commissioner, by the impugned order, determined the compensation at Rs. 11,570. The appellant-assurance company has been held liable to pay this amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the appellant-assurance company may be ultimately liable to pay the amount of compensation as has been determined by the Commissioner, no order in that behalf could have been passed against it in the present proceedings. According to him, it would be the employer who would primarily be liable for the said amount of compensation, who, in turn, may take appropriate steps for recovering the said amount from the insurance company. He in this connection referred to Section 14 of the Act and placed reliance on the decision in R.B. Moondra and Co. v. Bhanwari, AIR 1971 Raj 111.
4. I may, in this connection, refer to the following observations of a decision of this Court in Chotelal v. Dhalloomal Sindhi [1984] ACJ 591, 593 ; [1986] 60 Comp Cas 937, 938 (MP):
"Learned counsel for the appellant further argued in respect of the claim of the dependants of Lakhanlal as also in respect of the claim of Darshan Singh that the award should not have been made against the insurance company because there is no specific provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act for making the insurance company liable. This point is concluded against the insurance company by a Division Bench ruling of this court in Northern India Insurance Co. v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, [1973] ACJ 428 (MP). "
5. In the case of Northern India Insurance Company [1973] ACJ 428, the contentions that the insurance company could not be made a party to the proceedings under the Act and that no liability could be fastened upon the insurance company were negatived. It was observed therein that under Section 96, of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been made quite clear that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount as if it was a judgment debtor under the decree. The insurance company which is ultimately liable to discharge the claim was held to be a proper party to the proceedings in which a binding liability upon the insurance company was to be determined.
6. Section 14 of the Act on which learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance is attracted in the event of insolvency of the employer. This by itself does not negative the liability of the insurance company in cases wherein Section 14 of the Act is not attracted. In R.B. Moondra and Co.'s case, AIR 1970 Raj 111; [1971] ACJ 438, on which learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance, the appeal was filed by the employer. The reasoning, given in paragraph 18 of that decision, for all practical purposes, runs contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Northern India Insurance Co. [1973] ACJ 428 (MP) which was followed by another Division Bench of this court in Chotelal's case [1984] ACJ 591; [1986] 60 Comp Cas 937 (MP). I am bound by the Division Bench decisions of this court.
7. In this connection I may also refer to a decision in Khwajabai v. Gulabkhan Jamalkhan Pathan, [1979] ACJ 277 (Bom), wherein it has been held that Clause (5) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes the position of the insurance company the same as that of a judgment-debtor against whom the liability to pay the compensation is imposed under the Act. In that case, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had dismissed the claim against the insurance company. After referring to the different decisions, the appeal was allowed and the respondents were held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation.
8. In my opinion, therefore, the contention as was raised on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner could not have fastened a liability on the appellant insurance company cannot be accepted.
9. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant besides bearing its own costs of this appeal, shall also pay those of the claimant-respondents. Counsel's fee shall be as per the schedule.