Judgment

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing the appellant’s First Appeal No.282 of 2014 observing that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify him, thereby confirming the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-Proforma respondents 2-4/claimants, namely, Lalmani Yadav-father, Dashmiya Lalmani yadav-mother and Janaki alias Babli Ramesh Yadav-wife of the deceased, Ramesh Lalmani Yadav filed a claim petition before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot, claiming compensation for the death of deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav on 20.05.2002 in the course of his employment. On the fateful day of 20.05.2002, deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav was working as a cleaner in the vehicle bearing No.GJ-3V-7785, in the employment of the appellant and respondent No.5. In the afternoon at about 12.30 p.m., deceased was filling water in the radiator of the vehicle when suddenly the bonnet of the vehicle fell down on the head of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and died. Stating that Ramesh Lalmani Yadav died in the course of his employment, respondents No.2 to 4 filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,15,093/- and that appellant and respondent No.5–Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,15,093/-.

4. Before the Commissioner, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Upon consideration of the records, the Commissioner held that FIR dated 20.05.2002 was lodged by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. GJ-3V-7785 in which it was mentioned that on the fateful day while reversing the said vehicle he saw deceased putting water in the radiator of another vehicle bearing no. GJ-3U-5391 and that he slipped on the bonnet of vehicle, fell on his head and deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav sustained injuries and died. The Labour Court/Commissioner held that the insurance policy produced before him was in respect of the vehicle GJ-3V-7785 which was not involved in the vehicular accident and therefore Insurance Company–first respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the learned Commissioner held that the appellant and respondent No.5 being the owner of the vehicle, were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,25,365/- along with 10% penalty and annual interest at the rate of 6%.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant–owner of the vehicle preferred the first appeal in the High Court of Gujarat. Vide order dated 16.04.2014, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant observing that since vehicle No.GJ-3V-7785 was not involved in the accident and that only vehicle No.GJ-3U-5391 was involved and since the deceased was employed as a cleaner was only in vehicle No. GJ-3V-7785, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the appellant for the accident caused by the vehicle bearing No.GJ-3U-5391. In this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the said judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the vehicles, namely, GJ-3V-7785 and GJ-3U-5391 were duly owned by the appellant and both the vehicles were insured with the same insurance company viz. the first respondent–United India Insurance company and while so, the courts below are not justified in holding that the first respondent–insurance company is not liable to indemnify the appellant. It was submitted that the deceased was an employee of the appellant in vehicle No.GJ-3V-7785 and died during the course of the employment and as such, the fact that he was employed in another vehicle cannot exonerate the insurance company from indemnifying the appellant. It was further submitted that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, being a beneficial legislation and both the vehicles being insured with the first re