Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 762 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar Mahto v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2021-09-15

ANANDA SEN

body2021
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle, has challenged the direction contained in award dated 25.7.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 76/2004, whereby, it has been directed that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the appellant has to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants. 3. The short point which is involved in this appeal is that who has to satisfy the award i.e. the owner of the vehicle or the insurer of the vehicle. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the vehicle was insured and the deceased was an employee of the appellant and being the employee and since the additional premium has been paid for the employee, it is the Insurance Company, who has to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. By referring the insurance policy, he also submits that there is no doubt that the employee is covered as additional premium has been paid and thus the findings of the court below that the Khalasi is not covered under the insurance policy, is incorrect. 5. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that Exhibit-A is the Insurance Policy and from the said policy, it is clear that Khalasi was not covered as no additional payment was paid to cover the Khalasi. He further submits that it was only the driver who was covered in the said policy for whom extra premium was paid and thus, it cannot be said that Khalasi was covered under the said policy. He also submits that considering the fact that only the driver was covered under the policy and not the Khalasi, even if he was an employee of owner of the vehicle, is entitled to receive compensation from the owner and not from the Insurance Company. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was a Khalasi of Auto Rickshaw Minidor bearing Registration No. JH-03A-7326. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the appellant and was working as Khalasi in the offending Vehicle. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was a Khalasi of Auto Rickshaw Minidor bearing Registration No. JH-03A-7326. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the appellant and was working as Khalasi in the offending Vehicle. As the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner, the driver lost control over the vehicle, which turned turtle, resulting in injury and death of the Khalasi i.e. employee. 7. On the accidental death of the deceased, a Compensation Case No. 76/2004 was filed before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. In the compensation case, parties led their evidence and the Insurance Policy was exhibited as Ext.A. The tribunal considered the Insurance Policy i.e. Ext.A and held that the Khalasi was not covered, as no extra premium was paid for Khalasi, thus the Insurance Company was not made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation amount. 8. From the statements of the parties and from the points raised, the only dispute is with regard to interpretation of the insurance policy. Thus, I am not entering into the arena of the quantum of compensation and the assessment of the same. 9. Exhibit-A is the Insurance Policy, which is admitted by the parties. It is also admitted that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. It is also admitted that the deceased was an employee of the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle. It is further admitted fact that only one person, who is Khalasi of the vehicle, died in the said motor vehicle accident. 10. Now for the question as to whether it can be said that the said employee, who died in the said accident, was covered by the insurance policy or not? When I go through Ext.A, I find that an extra premium of Rs. 25/- was paid by the owner of the vehicle as “Legal Liability Employee/Driver.” The expression used in the policy as “Legal Liability Employee/Driver” covers an employee/driver. The coverage is not merely restricted to the driver only. If the intention was to restrict, the coverage only in respect of the driver then no occasion would have arisen to include the word “employee” also in the said expression. The coverage is not merely restricted to the driver only. If the intention was to restrict, the coverage only in respect of the driver then no occasion would have arisen to include the word “employee” also in the said expression. Using of word “Employee/Driver” means an employee is also covered by the insurance policy, be that person be a driver or Khalasi. Thus, this Court cannot accept the submission of the Insurance Company that only the driver was insured by such insurance policy. 11. It is also to be seen that only one person died in the accident and he is an employee and premium for one person has been paid as such, being a beneficial legislation, it can be interpreted that the deceased person, who is an employee of the owner of the offending vehicle, is covered by said policy. There is no doubt from the policy that an employee of the owner of the vehicle is covered by the insurance policy. Since the employee-Khalasi is covered by the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 12. In view what has been held above, the part of the award, which directs the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation, is set aside, with modification to the extent that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 13. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed. 14. The statutory amount, so deposited by the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of filing this appeal, be refunded to the owner of the vehicle.