National Insurance Company Limited vs Velpula Rajeswari And 5 Others

This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and

Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, in W.C.No.4 of 2006 dated 27.01.2007.

The appellant would mainly contend that the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider their contention that the insurance policy does not cover the

risk of the cleaner as there is no separate payment of premium for covering the risk of the cleaner of the vehicle. The appellant would further argued

that the award of the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the judgement of the Apex Court in RAMASHRAY SINGH V/s. NEW INDIA

ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 2000 (3) ACJ 1550 (SC), and therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the order in W.C.4 of 2006.

The said issue was raised before the Assistant Commissioner and he discussed the same at length and held that the insurance company is liable to

pay the compensation. The relevant portion of the same is extracted below for the sake of convenience.

“The opposite party No. 2 has contended that the risk of the cleaner of the vehicle was not covered under the said insurance policy. The

opposite party No. 2 also examined one Mr. M. Sanjeev, S/o. Narahari, Assistant, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office,

Karimnagar as RW-1 who deposed on 11.10.2006 that no premium was collected for cleaner and therefore the policy did not cover the

accident of the deceased who was a cleaner. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel of the applicants, the RW-1 admitted that the

insurance policy issued was comprehensive insurance policy and that under comprehensive insurance policy own damage was also covered

that basic premium was collected towards third party risk that the existing insurance policy covers the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

While denying the suggestions that the basic premium under a comprehensive insurance policy covers the liability of the driver and the

cleaner of the vehicle also, the RW-1 stated that the did not have details of the risks covered under the basic premium. On the foregoing I

conclude that the existing insurance policy being a comprehensive policy, the basic premium covers the risk of the employees like driver and

cleaner also. The RW-1 also could not reveal the details of risks covered under the basic premium. The opposite party No. 2 could not

establish that the existing insurance policy (Ex. R-1) did not cover the liability of the employees like driver and cleaner.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon several citations in support of his contentions. He mainly contended that there is no substantial

question of law to prefer an appeal. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act of

1923’) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and

the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial question of law arising in the case. He

relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V/s SUJATHA

2019 (11) SCC 514, wherein it was held as follows:

“9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident,

whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the

accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was

the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the

employee due to injuries suffered in ana accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the

incident, etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee

suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the

Act.

The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of

evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific

orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal

must involve substantial questions of law.

In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a

regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate

jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.â€​

In the above judgement, it was also clearly held that the interest is to be granted from the date of accident and not from the date of adjudication of

the claim. As it is a pure question of law, even if the respondents did not challenge for awarding interest, in order to do substantial justice, the relief

can be granted in their favour.

Learned counsel for the appellant would also argue that except the insurer and the insured all the other persons come under the category of third

party, for which he relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s

SHANTI BOPANNA AIR 2017 SC 2857. He would also advocate that statutory third-party insurance policy covers liability in respect of death or

bodily injury during the course of employment and it covers the employees engaged in driving the vehicle. If it is a public service vehicle, other than the

driver, the person engaged as a conductor is also covered. If it is a goods carriage, there is no exclusion in respect of any class of employees. All

employees in respect of whom liability arises under the Act of 1923 would be covered. The policy would also cover contractual liability.

In the case on hand, the deceased was a cleaner of the lorry bearing No.AP 37U 4511. There is no dispute regarding the employment of the

deceased as a cleaner as it was admitted by the owner in his counter. He met with an accident on 31.05.2005 and died and his legal representatives

filed the application for compensation.

Learned counsel for the claimants also relied upon a case law and stated that the Kalasi and the Gumasta accompanying the goods are persons

employed in connection with the operation of the motor vehicle and thus their risk is covered by the policy.

In the light of the above and also considering the discussion by the Assistant Commissioner, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in

the order dated 27.01.2007 and thus the appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final judgment.