AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Owned Damage Premium :,"Rs.2,745/-",
Less Bonus :,"Rs.1,276/-",
Third Party Premium :,"Rs.1,469/-",
is aggrieved.,,
Primary plea taken by the insurance company is that there is no valid Insurance Policy in respect of the workman and, therefore, the claim under",,
Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be discharged by the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also pleaded,,
that the deceased was a conductor of the tractor and, therefore, unless and until premium is paid to cover such an employee, claim for",,
compensation cannot be passed on to the Insurance Company. The liability at best can be fixed only on the owner of the tractor (respondent No.,,
3). The Insurance Company should be exonerated.,,
Per contra, Mr. A.S. Azad, learned counsel for the claimants, pleaded that the aged mother of the deceased (a widow) submits that from the",,
date of accident, they have received Rs. 1.07 lac as compensation that has been deposited by the Insurance Company as condition precedent for",,
admitting this petition. He pleads that the claimant-1 (mother) is suffering from serious health ailment (malignancy/cancer). They are in penury due,,
to the death of Tarsem Lal. It is pleaded that even if the claim under Workmen's Compensation Act is doubted, the insurance policy covers the",,
claim if the death of Tarsem Lal is as a third party in the peculiar facts of the case.,,
Having considered rival contentions, the following facts emerged remain undisputed:",,
1) The owner appeared before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, but before this Court he is ex-parte. The accident which",,
happened on 20.04.2005, Tarsem Lal who was working in the field levelling the heap of soil. The tractor owned by Swarn Singh driven by Avtar",,
Singh Driver in a rash and negligent manner lost its balance on the heap of soil. It turned turtle and caused serious injuries to Tarsem Lal, who was",,
working in the field. He died thereafter. It is clear that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving by Avtar Singh. Hence the driver and,,
the owner of the vehicle are liable to compensate the dependents of deceased Tarsem Lal for the tortuous Act.,,
The question that has arisen is whether Insurance Company is right in pleading that it would not be liable to pay the compensation under the,,
Workmen's Compensation Act. The Insurance Company-Appellant strongly refutes the claim. The Policy of Insurance (Annexure R-1) does not,,
cover the labourer/workman or an employee. That plea of Insurance appeared to be correct.,,
The Commissioner of Workmen's compensation Act proceeded on the basis that Tarsem Lal has to be treated as a victim and is covered by,,
3rd party insurance cover. Therefore, claimants will be entitled to seek compensation under the said policy.",,
The problem that arises in the present case is that the claimants have moved Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act. On this,,
factual background, the Court at this stage considering the age of claimant and the long number of year that has gone by, has to consider as to",,
whether amendment of the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in terms of Section 167, will meeting the ends of justice.",,
Section 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's compensation Act,",,
1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the",,
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such",,
compensation under either of those Act but not under both.,,
The respondents/claimants seek indulgence of the Court to put an end to this litigation, which started in the year 2005 on account of death of",,
Tarsem Lal which happened in April, 2005. Now more than 11 years has passed. The deceased was 26 years old, a bachelor, an agricultural",,
labourer, studied up to 7th standard. The mother is an ailing widow and, therefore, in this factual background, I am not inclined to remand the",,
matter for re-adjudication in terms of Motor Vehicles Act. Even though the Appellant's plea that the liability will not fall under the Workmen's,,
Compensation Act can be accepted. The claimants in the present case cannot be denied of just compensation. The Policy otherwise covers a claim,,
for compensation under third party risk clause. It will be travesty of justice to deny the claimants their rightful due. The Insurance Company liability,,
under third party claim is not ousted. The reasons for taking such a view are as follows:,,
Krishan Lal, witness on behalf of the Insurance Company stated that in the objections filed by the Insurance Company that Annexure R-1 is",,
the Insurance Policy. He clearly states in his cross-examination that the Insurance Company received total amount of insurance of Rs. 3,046/-,",,
which included owned damaged premium of Rs. 2,745, less bonus Rs. 1,276 and there is a third party premium of Rs. 1,469/- paid.",,
(Emphasis supplied),,
On facts, the evidence on record is that one Surinder Kumar, an eye witness, stated that he was coming from Sai and waiting for a bus at Sai",,
Bus stop. He saw a tractor coming from Sai Nallah and suffered an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor Sonalika,,
bearing No. JK02R-1257. The deceased Tarsem Lal was not on the tractor but he was working in the field levelling the heap of soil at the time of,,
accident. On the basis of above evidence of the eye witness, it is clear that the death was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver.",,
The deceased is a third party in so far the offending vehicle is concerned. This evidence of Surinder Kumar is not denied or contradicted. Even in,,
the cross-examination, the fact that the tractor was driven in rash and negligent manner and was the cause for the accident, crushing the deceased",,
Tarsem Lal is evident from the record. Therefore, even if there is no liability in terms of Women's Compensation Act, as contended, the Insurance",,
Company is, however, liable in terms of 3rd party premium paid and liable to settle the claims of third party.",,
On this admitted fact, drawing inference from Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the High",,
Court of Madras in case titled The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai, Thanbgam and N. Velu, Civil Misc. Appeal No.",,
1603 of 2001 decided on 30-10- 2002, wherein the Court took upon itself the adjudication of the compensation to do substantial justice.",,
In the case of Kaliya Pillai referred to above, the claim was made under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, where the driver of the tractor",,
died on his own by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal passed an award under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.,,
That was challenged by the Insurance Company, however, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court took a view that in terms of Section 167",,
Loss of love and
affection to mother :",=,"Rs. 30,000/-
Loss love and
affection to brother :",=,"Rs. 20,000/-
Funeral and transport
expenses :",=,"Rs. 10,000/-
Total amount comes
to :",=,"Rs. 2,64,000/-
case was, however, restored on 22.07.2013. However, the records were not returned. Appellant does not dispute the third party insurance",,
premium. Since the case is of the year 2005 and one of the claimants is aged and an ailing widow, I am not inclined to adjourn the case any further",,
to verify the driving licence. No plea on validity of driving licence was raised earlier. At best, it could be a case to pay and recover from the owner",,
of vehicle later on, in case there is no valid driving licence. Even in the adjudication, there is no reference that the driver Avtar Singh did not hold a",,
valid driving licence. In the contrary what has been found on record is that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.,,
On this premise, I am not inclined to remand the matter. The plea for remanding the case to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for",,
adjudication at this stage would be a travesty of justice to the innocent claimants. Besides all relevant documents were marked, evidence recorded;",,
and the adjudication order has been passed on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The issue before me is the legal implication on,,
admitted fact, i.e., payment of premium for third party claim. I hold in favour of the claimants and against the appellant â€" insurance company.",,
In the result, the Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced amount with interest @ 6% per annum.",,
Time for deposit as pleaded eight weeks.,,
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.,,