Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 240 (CHH)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. NEERA BAI

2011-07-21

N.K.AGARWAL

body2011
ORDER 1. By this common order, M.A.(C) No. 904/2009 and M.A.(C) No.905/ 2009 are being disposed of as the same are arising out of same accident. 2. These are insurance appeals against the award dated 19.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Korba (for short, 'the Commissioner') in case No. 45/WCActl08 F and 46/ WCActl08 F. 3. Aforesaid appeals were admitted for hearing on 30.09.2010 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the insurance company is responsible for payment of compensation without paying premium for any labour? 2. Whether the tractor was used against the terms and conditions of the policy? If yes, then how the insurance company is responsible?" 4. As against Rs.5,00,000/- & Rs.5,00,000/- claimed as compensation in case No. 45/WCAct/08 F and that of case No.46/WCAct/08 F by respondents No.1 to S/claimants (in both cases) for the death of Govind Ram and Samaar Singh Patel arising out of and in the course of employment under respondent No.7, the learned Commissioner has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,71,561/- in favour of the claimants in case No.45/WCAct/08 F and Rs. 1,14,036/- in case No.46/WCAct./08 F along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment till its realization, if the aforesaid amounts are not deposited within 30 days from the date of judgment. The learned Commissioner held the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation. 5. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company would submit that a bare perusal of the Kisan Package Policy issued by the appellant would reveal: under the policy, the appellant/ insurance company has not undertaken the risk of labourers sitting in the tractor bearing registration No.CG. 12-F/0911 and, trolley bearing registration No.CG. 12-F/Q912. It was further contended: deceased persons Govind Ram and Samaar Singh Patel, in fact, were not labourers of the tractor-trolley but were engaged by respondent No.7 to work in his quarry, and therefore, the learned Commissioner has erred in law in fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. 6. On the other hand, Shri S. V.Purohit, learned counsel appearing for claimants No.1 to 5 (in both cases) would submit: the deceased persons were labourers of the tractor, policy is Kisan Package Policy which covers the risk of labourers and there is no need to interfere in the award passed by the learned Commissioner. 6. On the other hand, Shri S. V.Purohit, learned counsel appearing for claimants No.1 to 5 (in both cases) would submit: the deceased persons were labourers of the tractor, policy is Kisan Package Policy which covers the risk of labourers and there is no need to interfere in the award passed by the learned Commissioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 8. In terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act only in regard to reimbursement of the claim to a third party, a contract of insurance must be taken by the owners of the vehicle. It is imperative in nature. When, however, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks; it is permissible to enter into a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof. 9. The liability of the insurer to reimburse the owner in respect of l claim made by the third party, thus, is statutory whereas other claims are no. The contract of insurance, which is not statutory in nature, should be construed like any other contract. 10. I have noticed the terms of the contract of insurance. The policy issued is Kisan Package Policy. A bare perusal of the policy would reveal: the appellant/insurance company has not undertaken risk of labourers sitting in the tractor-trolley by entering into special contract with the owner and by charging extra premium there for. Shri S.V.Purohit, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/claimantsalso failed to point out any such condition in the policy filed and proved in the case by the appellant. Further, the deceased persons, at the time of accident, were digging out the soil from the quarry owned by respondent No.7 -Rajendra Rawat, owner of the tractor, at the relevant time is also not in dispute. 11. In view of above, it is crystal clear that the deceased persons were not covered under the Kisan Package Policy issued in the case. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any labourers sitting in a tractor and the insurance company would have no liability there for. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law have been answered in affirmative. 12. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any labourers sitting in a tractor and the insurance company would have no liability there for. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law have been answered in affirmative. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeals preferred by the insurance company are allowed. The award in so far as against the appellants/ insurance is concerned is set aside. The liability to pay amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner fully rests on the owner. The respondents/claimants are free to execute the award against the owner and driver of the vehicle i.e. respondents No.6 & 7. If the amount already deposited and is disbursed to the claimants, the appellant/insurance company would be at liberty to recover the• same from the owner of the vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain unaltered. The amount so deposited, if any, before the learned Commissioner shell be refunded to the appellant. 13. No order as to costs. Appeals Allowed.