Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 367 (JHR)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Salamuddin

2002-03-15

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2002
Judgment By Court.-Admittedly, Md., Rafique Ansari, son of Salamuddin, respondent no. 1, was employed as Khalasi on a trekker, bearing registration no. BHM 236, which belonged to Manoj Sah, respondent no. 2. 2. On 10.6.1984, Md. Rafique Ansari was on his duty on said trekker, which was coming from Sirka to Dhanbad. On the way at Argara Check Post, he fell down from the trekker and sustained head injury and died. His father Salamuddin filed an application for compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). According to him his deceased son was 16 year's old and was getting salary of Rs. 850/- per month. 3. On the basis of materials on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh, assessed age of the deceased at 19 years and his earnings at Rs. 800/per month and thus calculated a sum of Rs. 70,070.40 paise as compensation payable under the Act. 4. Since the trekker in question was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the relevant time the Insurer was directed to pay the said compensation amount to the claimant. 5. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. A written statement was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company also in the compensation case, wherein under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it was claimed that insurer was not liable to pay the compensation amount as in the policy in question, extra premium was paid only to cover the risk of driver as well as nine passengers. There was no coverage of risk of cleaner (Khalasi) of the trekker in the said policy. 6. Mr. G.C. Jha, counsel for appellant Insurance Company submitted that on transfer of claim case to Labour Court. Hazaribagh, by order dated 1.8.1990, direction was given to issue notice to the Insurance Company, but no such notice was given and all of a sudden notice dated 26.4.1994 was received, whereby it was directed to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest. According to him, for want of information the Insurance Company could not contest the case. 7. Mr. G.C. Jha, further submitted that provisions of section 4 of the Act was amended by Act No. 22 of 1984 with effect from 1.7.1984. According to him, for want of information the Insurance Company could not contest the case. 7. Mr. G.C. Jha, further submitted that provisions of section 4 of the Act was amended by Act No. 22 of 1984 with effect from 1.7.1984. Earlier under section 4(1)(a) of the Act where death resulted from the injury and the deceased workman was in receipt of the monthly wages falling within the limits shown in the first column of Schedule IV, amount shown against such limits in the second column thereof was payable as compensation, but the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, erred in law in applying the amended provisions of section 4, which was not applicable in the present case. Admittedly, accident took place on 10.6.1984, whereas the amended provision came into force from 1.7.1984 and it could not have been applied retrospectively. 8. Reference of Sections 110 and 110A of 1939 Act is only with regard to nature of liability and not about the extent. Thus, under the Act extent of liability of the insurer is not limited. Once liability of vehicle owner is fixed, insurer is duty bound for indemnification. Section 95 made it statutorily compulsory for the owner of vehicle to take out insurance of his vehicle to cover certain necessary liabilities, which are likely to be incurred by it, including the liability arising under the provisions of the Act, which necessarily make the insurer liable for indemnifying the employer in respect of those liabilities. When a liability is taken by insurer, it is limited to that is allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 9. We are, therefore, of the view that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant respondent no. 1 under the Act. 10. The amount of compensation in case of death of workman has to be worked out as shown in Schedule IV of the Act, as it was on the date of accident. The monthly wage of the deceased was rightly determined at Rs. 800/- and as such according to Schedule IV of the Act, fixed amount of Rs. 24,000/- was payable as compensation. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, liability of the Insurance Company appellant, would be Rs. 24,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as held by the Labour Court and not Rs. 70,070.40 paise. 12. 800/- and as such according to Schedule IV of the Act, fixed amount of Rs. 24,000/- was payable as compensation. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, liability of the Insurance Company appellant, would be Rs. 24,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as held by the Labour Court and not Rs. 70,070.40 paise. 12. Thus the judgment and award impugned is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Lower court records may be sent down.