AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—A claim petition filed u/s 22 of Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (fort short ''the Act''), by Respondents 2 to 4 before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. Davanagere District, against the 1st Respondent and the Appellant having been allowed and the Appellant having been directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest, questioning the order/award, this appeal has been filed. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the claim petition filed before the Commissioner.
The Petitioners are the wife and children of one K. Mahanthappa, who was employed as a loader by the owner of tractor-trailer unit bearing registration No. KA-17-630 & 631. The said person sustained personal injuries by accident, which occurred on 25.02.2007, arising out of and in the course of his employment and died. The wife and children of the deceased, filed claim petition u/s 22 of the Act, against the insured and the insurer of the vehicles. The insured filed written statement and admitted the employment of K. Mahanthappa as loader in his vehicle-tractor/trailer bearing No. KA-17-630 & 631, the occurrence of the accident on 25.02.2007 involving the said vehicles, the injuries sustained by K. Mahanthappa by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He stated that, the vehicles were duly insured and the liability to pay compensation is that of the insurer. The insurance company-Appellant filed written statement and denied the claim.
1st Petitioner deposed, through whom Exs.R-2-1 & R-2-2 were marked. The Commissioner taking into consideration the rival contentions and after appreciation of the evidence brought on record, has held that, the deceased K. Mahanthappa sustained injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the owner of the said vehicles while working as loader and earning wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Finding that the claimants were dependents and the deceased was 65 years of age, the relevant factor 99-37 being applicable, the compensation payable was determined at Rs. 1,49,055/-. The Appellant having issued the insurance coverage to the vehicles and the insurance being subsisting as on the date of accident, was directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 12% w.e.f 24.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the 2nd Respondent in the claim petition has filed this appeal.
Sri A.K. Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant, contended that, the Commissioner has erred in hoisting the liability on the Appellant to satisfy the award since K. Mahanthappa was not a coolie or loader in the vehicle. Learned Counsel further contended that, in view of R.100 r/w R.226 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, carriage of loader in a tractor-trailer being prohibited, there being no requirement of insurance coverage to employee of insured of an agricultural tractor-trailer, the fastening of liability is illegal. Alternatively, learned Counsel contended that, the awarding of interest from 30 days of accident is contrary to the law declared in the judgment reported at 2009 AIR SCW 3717.
I have perused the record. The questions for determination are:
Whether the Commissioner was justified in fastening the liability on the Appellant to pay the compensation amount?
Whether the Commissioner has exceeded in its jurisdiction in directing payment of interest on the compensation amount from 30 days of the accident?
The 1st Respondent/employer/insured has admitted the fact that, deceased K. Mahanthappa was employed by him as a loader for tractor-trailer, which belonged to him and was insured by the Appellant. He has also admitted the occurrence of the accident, fatal injuries caused to K. Mahanthappa by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as well as the insurance coverage. Even otherwise, evidence of PW-1 being supported by Exs.P-1 to P-10, the Commissioner is justified in holding that K. Mahanthappa sustained fatal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as a loader in the tractor-trailer. The employee having died leaving behind the dependents, taking into consideration the wages, the age, the compensation was assessed and ordered to be deposited by the Appellant, which had issued the insurance policy. Ex.P.10-inquest report clearly establishes the occurrence of untoward incident while the deceased was working as a loader, having loaded the soil to the trailer attached to tractor and was travelling in the vehicle to carry out the unloading work.
Indisputedly, the Appellant issued the insurance policy to the vehicles in question for the period from 22.02.2007 to 21.02.2008. The accident occurred on 25.02.2007. The policy shows the collection of premium to third party at Rs. 800/-, compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver at Rs. 100/- and Rs. 25/- as against WC to employee-1 with an insertion by hand - driver only. The premium has been collected as per IMT-40. IMT-40 is with regard to legal liability paid to driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of motor vehicle. The premium to be collected and paid while taking insurance of the vehicle concurred at the rate of Rs. 25/- per driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner. Third proviso thereunder reads as follows:
(3) the insured shall keep a record of the name of each driver-cleaner-conductor or person employed in loading and/or unloading and the amount of wages-salary and other earnings paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the insurer to inspect such record.
In MFA 6556-6559 of 2006 decided on 27.12.2010, it has been held that, the tractor-trailer unit is a goods carriage and therefore the risk of coolies carried in a tractor-trailer is compulsorily required to the covered u/s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In MFA 3098/2005 decided on 10.09.2007, it has been held that, the workman carried in a tractor-trailer for the purpose of loading the sand was expected to travel in the tractor-trailer for the purpose of unloading also and by notional extension, it should be deemed that, when at the time of loading/unloading or doing any work ancillary to the purpose, if any accident occurs, it is deemed to be in the course of and out of employment and the insurer is obliged to cover such risk under the proviso to Section 147.
In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Renuka and Others, , the vehicle involved was a tractor-trailer and the insurance company had collected premium of Rs. 25/- to cover the risk of one employee and in the policy it is stated as ''WC to employee 1'' and not as a ''driver''. Noticing the contents of the policy and by making reference to Sub-section (5) of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was held that, it is not permissible for the Appellant insurance company to avoid the liability on the ground that the employee was not permitted to be carried in the vehicle or such a risk was not required to be covered in law when the risk of one employee is expressly covered under the insurance policy. It was further held that, it is not permissible for an insurer to avoid any liability relating to the risk expressly covered under the policy on the ground that such a risk was not required to be covered or could not have been covered in law.
In Mounesh v. Thimmanna and Ors. 2011 (1) KCCR 341, it has been held that, the tractor with a trailer for transportation would be very much a goods vehicle, in which event, the risk of workmen/loaders in a tractor-trailer is necessary to be covered u/s 147 of the Act as an Act Policy without collecting any additional premium and the insurer would be liable to pay the entire compensation amount in terms of the Act.
Keeping in view the fact that the Appellant had issued the policy and has also collected the premium, the Commissioner is justified in fastening the liability on the Appellant to pay the compensation amount.
In Shri Aleemuddin and Others Vs. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, , the question raised for determination was:
Where an employee receives personal injuries in a motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while working in the motor vehicle of the employer, whether the Insurance Company, which has insured the employer/owner of the vehicle against the third party accident claims under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and against the claim for compensation arising out of the proceedings under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in connection with such motor accident, is liable to pay the interest in respect of the award passed against the insured employer u/s 4A(3) of the Act and if so, from what date?
The said question was answered as follows:
Keeping in mind the ratio of law laid clown in the case referred to supra, it is just and necessary to state that the larger Bench decision in the case of Pratap Narain Singh DEO (Supra) appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, when the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Kamala Chaturvedi''s Case (Supra) were delivered. The said two decisions are by Benches of two Hon''ble Judges of the. Apex Court, whereas, the ratio of law laid down in the ease of Pratap Narain Singh Deo''s case, which has been followed in the subsequent cases, was rendered by a quorum of more than two Hon''ble Judges. Under Article-141 of the Constitution of India, the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts in the country. However, in the event if there is a conflict on the question of law in two decisions, while considering the question of law on the point and interpretation of statute, this Court is required to follow the course of action as has been laid down by the larger Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik G Kalaghatigi (supra).
In view of the ratio of" law laid down by the Apex Court in the ease of Pratap Narain Singh Deo''s (Supra), which is the binding precedent in regard to the expression "fell due" appearing in Section-4A(1) and (3) of the Act, following and applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, it has to be held that the amount of compensation becomes due on expiry of one month from the date of accident and if the same is not paid or deposited, interest becomes payable after the expiry of one month period from the date of the workmen sustaining injuries due to an accident in the course of his employment and not after 30 days from the date of order/award passed by the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has erred in not applying the law, as enunciated in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) and in not awarding the interest after expiry of 30 days from the date of the accident. Hence, the contentions of the learned Counsel for Respondent are unacceptable. Substantial question of law stands answered accordingly.
The Commissioner has ordered payment of interest taking into consideration the said decision. The Commissioner has not committed any error in allowing the interest on the compensation amount after 30 days of the accident.
In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
The amount deposited in this appeal be immediately transferred to the Office of the Commissioner.
No costs.