B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed by the United India Insurance company Limited aggrieved by the Order dated 23-5-1997 passed in W. C. No. B1/783 of 1995 N. F. on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation-cum-Assistant commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

( 2 ) THE applicant in W. C. No. B1/783 of 1995 N. F. also filed Cross Objections dissatisfied with the quantum of amount awarded to him as compensation.

( 3 ) THE applicant was the second driver of the vehicle bearing No. 4122 API. The said vehicle involved in an accident on 29-7-1994 while it was proceeding towards hyderabad and when it reached the outskirts of Adloor, Yellareddy Village. The vehicle is owned by the second respondent herein. In the said accident, the applicant sustained fracture injuries for which he took treatment in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. He filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation-cum-Assistant commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

( 4 ) THE owner of the vehicle viz. , chitikanti Ramesh filed a counter stating that he insured the vehicle with the appellant- united India Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the injured.

( 5 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company also filed counter disputing its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the applicant was a second driver and therefore, his risk was not covered under the policy.

( 6 ) THE learned Commissioner framed the following two issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident was occurred during the course of employment of the applicant? 2. To what relief the applicant is entitled to? the applicant examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr. Devidas as PW2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, one b. Madhusudhan Rao was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex. B 1 copy of the policy through him. On considenng the evidence on record and on hearing both the parties, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 58,242/- by an order dated 23-5-1997 to the applicant and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the same within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Assailing the order dated 23-5-1997 passed in W. C. No. B1/783 of 1995 N. F. , the Insurance Company has filed this C. M. A. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the applicant filed cross objections.

( 7 ) HE only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company before me is that the first respondent herein (applicant before the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation-cum-Assistant commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad) was the second driver in the crime vehicle and therefore, his risk was not covered under ex. B1 policy. He referred to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short " the Act") in support of his contention. Whereas it is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent-applicant that the risk of the second driver was also covered under Ex. Bl policy. He placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kashim, 1996 (2) ACJ 928. 2. National Insurance Company Limited v. Thimmareddy, 1999 (1) ACJ 399, and 3. Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1998 (1) ACJ 1. In the first cited decision i. e. , Oriental insurance, Company s case (supra), the karnataka High Court held that the risk of the second driver is also covered under the policy, since he was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity as an employee of the owner of the vehicle in the course of employment. In the second cited decision i. e. , National insurance Company s case (supra), the karnataka High Court held that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the second driver since he was an employee of the owner of the vehicle travelling in the course of employment.

( 8 ) SECTION 147 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 deals with the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document