The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the death of a cleaner in an accident unless an extra premium is paid under the contract of insurance to cover the liability for the death of the cleaner.

JUDGMENT :

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity “the Act”) aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2009 passed in W.C.No.72 of 2007 by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (for short “the Commissioner”).

2. The Appellant herein is the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 and the respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the applicants/claimants and respondent No.3 herein is the Opposite Party No.1 in W.C No.72 of 2007. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. The applicants have filed the impugned W.C.No.72 of 2007 before the Commissioner seeking for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment against the Opposite Parties.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are the parents of N. Ramanjaneya Goud and he was working as a Lorry Cleaner under the employment of Opposite party No.1. The said N. Ramanjaneya Goud and one B. Venkata Narayana Reddy are the driver and cleaner of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-1725 belongs to Opposite Party No.1 (OP.No.1). ON the instructions of OP No.1 both of them left from Rayalacheruvu with a load aof Dolomite in the lorry to Srikalahasti and on 4.3.2007 night the said B.V. Narayana Reddy was driving the lorry and the deceased was sitting in the cabin of the lorry and when the lorry reached near Siva Sai Petrol Bunk, Bhakarapet in between Kadapa-Vontimitta road at about 2.00 AM on 5.3.2007, one lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-5788 was parking on the road due to truck up of gear box and the driver of the suject lorry had not observed the said lorry and dashed on its rear side and as a result of which the Ramanajaneya Goud died on the spot. Thus the deceased died during the course and out of his employment under OP No.1 as a cleaner. Thereafter, the Sidhout Police registered a case in Cr.No.19 of 2007 under Section 304(A) IPC. The applicants herein are the parents of the deceased and they are solely depending upon the income of their deceased son. Due to his sudden death, the applicants lost everything and lost to the estate. The OP No.1 is the owner of the subject lorry and the said lorry was insured with OP No.2 and paid premium. The Policy Cover Note No.51227037 valid from 15.2.2007 to 14.2.2008. the accident took place on 5.3.2007 and the policy covers the risk of their parties, workers. Hence, OP No.2 has to indemnify the OP No.1. hence, both OP No.1 and OP No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. The OP No.1 was remained ex parte.

6. The OP No.2 has filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition and stated that the applicants are put to strict proof about the manner of accident by producing certified copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report etc., and the OP No.1 did not paid any premium to this respondent to cover the risk of alleged cleaner working under the employment of OP No.1 and this respondent is not liable to indemnify the loss of OP no.1 and hence the applicants are put to strict proof about their relationship with the deceased and denied the age, health condition and wage and employee-employer relationship between the deceased and OP No.1 and the applicants are not issued any notice as contemplated under Section 10 of W.C Act, as such, the application is not maintainable. The deceased getting wages Rs.3,700/- per month and the same was spent towards his parents. The deceased is aged about 20 years prior to the accident.

7. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked and on behalf of the Opposite Parties, Sri J. Madan Mohan Reddy, who is working as Manager, Legal in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad examined as RW.1 and marked the policy was Ex.B1.

8. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on bot