Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted in all fairness that the factum of the accident is not in dispute nor does the appellant deny that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries resulting in loss of his earning capacity. However, since the claimant was employed as a handyman and no additional premium had been paid by the owner of the vehicle to cover the claim arising out of his liability towards the handyman of the vehicle, the appellant cannot be asked to bear the amount of compensation since a handyman does not come within the definition of an employee mentioned in the proviso (i) of Section 147(1)(b) of the Act of 1988. In other words, according to Mr. Goswami, the handyman of the mini bus is not included within the category of employees whose liability is covered under the statute even without any extra premium being paid by the insured.

7. To buttress his argument, Mr. Goswami has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664 to contend that the class of persons who would be covered under the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, according to which, handyman of a vehicle would not be covered under the statute. Mr. Goswami further submits that by following the law laid down in Ramashray Singh (Supra) this court has also held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Konjengbam Ibo Singh and another reported in 2008(1) GLT 868 that except the Driver, Conductor and Ticket Examiner of a passenger bus, no other category of employee will be covered under the policy without the payment of additional premium.

9. Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent no.1/claimant, on the other hand, contends that respondent no.1, who was working as the handyman- cum- cleaner was also entrusted with the additional responsibility to look-after the passengers and to collect fares. Since the respondent No 1 was the only employee who was collecting fares from the passengers, according the learned counsel, his case would be covered under the proviso (i) to Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act of 1988. Mr. Choudhury has further argued that the insurance company has failed to produce the original policy documents so as to establish that no additional premium was paid in this case covering the other category of employees. He therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid omission on the part of the insurance Company, adverse presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is required to be drawn against the appellant.