JUDGMENT :-Heard Smt. I Mammu Vani learned Standing Counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Sri K.L.N. Rao and Sri M. Vijay Reddy Counsels for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.9.1999 passed by the Chairman, A.P.M.V. Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.P. No.140/1998, the Insurance Company filed this appeal.

3. The facts with regard to the occurrence of the accident on 1.6.1998 at 5.00 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding on a lorry bearing No. AIK 6856 as a cleaner from Siddipet side towards Secunderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the claimant suffering 75 per cent of disability on account of amputation of both of his legs, are not in dispute and further the quantum of compensation is also not being disputed by the Insurance Company. The only dispute is with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant is the son of the owner of the lorry and that he is not the cleaner and further the cleaner is not covered under the policy, as no additional premium was paid. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others, 2003 (1) DT (SC) 632, She further submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the cleaner is entitled to compensation, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited under Section 4 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. In support of this contention, the leaned Counsel for the appellant relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 172 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Warangal v. Thudi Mallamma, 2000(6) ALD 461. With regard to maintainability, the learned Counsel submitted that as the quantum of compensation is not being questioned and only the liability, no permission need be taken under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the statutory defenses under Section 149(2)(a) of the said Act, are always available.

5. On the other hand, the, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant Sri K.L.N. Rao mainly contended that as permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not obtained, the appeal itself is not maintainable. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002)7 SCC 456. He contended that there is no bar to employ son of the owner as cleaner and that no evidence is lead by the Insurance Company. He stated that 1st respondent - owner is not set ex parte. He further contended that there is no evidence to show that EX.B-1 policy does not cover the cleaner or that no premium was paid, which is matter of evidence. He contended that mere marking of the policy is not sufficient. As the claimant is employed under the 1st respondent driver and the lorry was insured and further as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, he contended that the claimant is entitled to file claim petition either under Motor Vehicles Act or under Workmens Compensation Act. He contended that as the claimant who is employed as cleaner of the crime lorry filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation cannot be restricted under Section 4 of the Workmens Compensation Act. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P. 1996 ACJ 1.

6. In the present case, as already noted and as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Insurance Company is not questioning the quantum of compensation and the dispute is only with regard to liability. Therefore, the Insurance Company has to confine to the statutory defense

Click Here to Read the rest of this document