Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 484 (ORI)

G. Krishna Rao v. New India, Assurance Co. Ltd.

2011-09-13

S.C.PARIJA

body2011
ORDER 13.9.2011 — This appeal by the owner of the vehicle is directed against the award dated 20.2.2010, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Jeypore, in W.C. Case No.19 of 2003, awarding an amount of Rs.2,63,940/- as compensation and directing the owner-appellant to pay the same and the appellant having deposited the entire awarded amount with the Commissioner, from out of which an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- having been disbursed to the claimants, the Commissioner has directed disbursement of the balance amount of Rs.93,940/- in favour of the claimants, with liberty to the appellant to recover the awarded amount from the insurer of the vehicle. The Commissioner has also awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident, for delay in depositing the amount. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the vehicle (car) No.AP-32-D/2340 was covered under a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident, the Commissioner erred in saddling the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle and granting him liberty to recover the same from the insurer. It is accordingly submitted that as the vehicle in question was covered under a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company-respondent No.1 is liable to reimburse the appellant, who has already deposited the entire awarded amount with the Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company while supporting the impugned award submits that as there was violation of policy condition, the Commissioner was justified in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that out of the awarded compensation amount deposited by the owner-appellant, the claimants have already received Rs.1,70,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.93,940/-, along with accrued interest thereon be released to them. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the Commissioner has come to find that the vehicle was covered under a valid policy of insurance and that there was violation of policy condition. The relevant findings of the Commissioner is extracted below :- “On perusal of the evidence on case record, it is observed that the offending vehicle had duly been insured by the O.P.2 as a private car bearing Policy No.550602/31/03/90242 valid from 10.5.2003 to 9.5.2004 covering the date of accident and driver of the vehicle having effective driving licence. The relevant findings of the Commissioner is extracted below :- “On perusal of the evidence on case record, it is observed that the offending vehicle had duly been insured by the O.P.2 as a private car bearing Policy No.550602/31/03/90242 valid from 10.5.2003 to 9.5.2004 covering the date of accident and driver of the vehicle having effective driving licence. The driver (deceased) had the valid Driving Licence to drive the type of the offending vehicle in which he was driving and which met with the accident. The Insurance Policy did not cover for use of the vehicle for purpose of hire and reward. Since the offending vehicle along with driver of the vehicle has been covered under Insurance Policy, the O.P.2- Insurer needs to indemnify the O.P. No.1 and pay awarded compensation amount whether or not other terms and conditions of the policy have been violated by the O.P.1. In view of the decision of various Hon’ble High Courts as discussed supra the O.P.2 is free to take other recourses against the O.P.1 for violation of the terms of condition of the policy like use of the offending vehicle for hire and reward at the time of accident.” Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that the vehicle in question was covered under a valid policy of insurance covering the date of the accident, the direction contained in the impugned award fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle (appellant) is not proper and justified and the same is accordingly set aside. As the owner-appellant has already deposited the entire awarded amount with the Commissioner, the award of interest @ 12% per annum, for the delay in deposit, is also set aside. The Insurance Company-respondent No.1 is directed to reimburse the owner-appellant the entire awarded compensation amount of Rs.2,63,940/-, which shall be done within eight weeks hence. The amount of Rs.93,940/-, which is lying in deposit with the Commissioner be disbursed to the claimants along with the accrued interest thereon on proper identification. FAO is accordingly disposed of. FAO disposed of.