Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs N. Ramanna And Ors. on 24 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: II(2005)ACC687, 2005(2)ALD128, 2005(1)ALT657
JUDGMENT D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Even though Vacate Stay Petition No. 15519 of 2004 filed by the respondents has come up for consideration to-day, with the consent of both Counsel, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and consideration since the controversy lies in a narrow compass.
3. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore, challenging the award and decree dated 12-11-2003 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 171 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 83,728/- towards compensation to the parents of the deceased cleaner N. Chandranna in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27-11 -1998.
4. This Court by order dated 23-2-2004 made in CM.P. No. 4098 of 2004, stayed all further proceedings of the decree and judgment dated 12411-2003 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 171 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, subject to the condition of the appellant depositing half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal along with proportionate costs and interest, after giving credit to the amount, if any, already deposited.
5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that as per the decision of the apex Court in Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., , the cleaner shall be specifically covered under the valid policy and as the word 'cleaner' is not mentioned in the policy, the appellant is not obliged to pay any compensation to the dependants of the cleaner.
6. A perusal of the policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company shows that the policy covers the driver, conductor and two workmen. In the instant case, it is the case of the appellant that it is the cleaner who died in the accident. The coverage of the policy depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. All vehicles need not necessarily have a 'cleaner', by designation. Even a workman, engaged otherwise either by the owner or by the driver, depending upon the nature of the work, may fall within the category of 'workman'.
7. The facts in the above cited ruling of the apex Court are totally different from the facts of the case on hand. In this case, the policy covers driver, conductor and two workmen and necessary premium was paid in that behalf. In the case before the apex Court, as could be seen from paragraph 13 of the said decision, premium was paid for 13 passengers and one driver and no premium was paid to cover the risk of 'conductor' or any 'workmen'. In those circumstances compensation was denied.
8. In the instant case, it is the cleaner who is supposed to work under the control of the owner of the vehicle and also under the supervision of the driver assisting him in the manner required. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that a cleaner would fall, in the present set of facts and circumstances, within the category of 'workman'. As already seen, two workmen are covered by the policy.
9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. The respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant without furnishing any security. No costs.