AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—In this appeal, an order/award passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Chitradurga District, allowing the claim petition filed by the Respondents 1 to 6 and directing the Appellant to deposit the compensation amount with interest, has been questioned. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the claim petition filed before the Commissioner.
The 1st Petitioner is the wife, Petitioners 2 to 4 are the children and Petitioners 5 and 6 are the parents of one Umesh Naika, who was employed by the 1st Respondent as loader and unloader in his tractor-trailer bearing registration No. KA-16-473 and 474, which was insured by the Appellant. That on 07.04.2005, the said vehicle was driven by a driver Thippeswamy. After loading the sand at Kalaghatta, in order to reach Bhimasamudra via Hire-Kandavadi Village, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied brake suddenly and as a result Umesh Naika was thrown out of the tractor-trailer and was caught under the wheels, sustained fatal injuries and while was being shifted to the District Hospital, Chitradurga, died. The Petitioners being the dependents of the deceased Umesh Naika, filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation against the owner of the tractor-trailer/employer and the insurer of the vehicle. The owner of the tractor-trailer/employer appeared and filed objection statement dated 23.01.2006, wherein it was admitted that, Umesh Naika worked as a loader and unloader in his tractor-trailer bearing registration No. KA-16-473 and 474 and the fact of he having directed him to bring the sand from Kalaghatta in the tractor-trailer for own use, the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, Umesh Naika sustaining fatal injuries and death. He also admitted the payment of wages at Rs. 2,800/- p.m. and bata of Rs. 50/- per day. He submitted that, the vehicles were insured and the liability has to be discharged by the insurance company. The 2nd Respondent insurance company filed statement of objections and denied the petition averments and contested the claim.
The 6th Petitioner deposed in support of the claim, through whom Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are the police records relating to the accident in question. Ex.A-7 is the death certificate. For the insurance company, its authorised representative deposed, through whom the insurance policy, ''B'' register extract and the information furnished by the insured were marked as Exs.R-1 to R-3. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Commissioner has allowed the claim petition and passed the order determining the compensation payable at Rs. 2,95,590/- with interest.
Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that, the Appellant had covered the offending tractor-trailer under Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles Policy, which did not cover the risk of any other person other than the driver and the evidence of RW-1 has not been correctly appreciated and hence, the impugned order/award being perverse, the appeal may be allowed.
Sri Madhukar Nadig, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 6, on the other hand contended that, the Commissioner has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the liability fastened on the Appellant to pay the compensation amount is justified, since the Appellant has collected premium of Rs. 25/- covering the risk of an employee. Learned Counsel pointed out that, the insertion made in hand or, Ex.R-1 ''one driver only'', being a malafide act on the part of the Appellant, the Commissioner is justified in directing the Appellant to pay/deposit the compensation amount.
In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case, which I have perused, the question for determination is:
Whether the Commissioner is justified in directing the Appellant to deposit the compensation amount on the basis of insurance policy - Ex.R-1 ?
There is no dispute that the Appellant had issued the policy as per Ex.R-1 in respect of the vehicle in question. The employment of the deceased as a loader/unloader by the insured, the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, sustaining of fatal injuries during the course of employment as a result of accident, was admitted by the insured. Even otherwise, the evidence on record clearly establishes the occurrence of the accident, the deceased having sustained fatal injuries as a result of the accident during the course of employment and succumbing thereto, due to the accident.
Perusal of Ex.R-1 would show that, there is collection of premium of Rs. 25/- against entry WC to employee-1. There is also collection of premium of Rs. 100/-against entry Compulsory PA to Owner-driver.
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 Vs. Thimmanna and Others, , 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.
The Appellant having collected premium of Rs. 25/- by extending coverage to one employee, the fastening of liability on the Appellant to deposit the compensation amount is justified. The question stands determined against the Appellant.
In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, shall stand dismissed.
The amount deposited in this appeal be sent to the Office of the Commissioner.
No costs.