The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the insurance policy under Sec. 146 and Sec. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the coverage of liability in respect of bodily injury during the course of employment.

JUDGMENT

DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J. - The Appellant herein is the 3rd opposite party before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada (in short 'learned tribunal') filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 3/6/2010 in W.C.No. 2 of 2008, which was filed seeking compensation of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent/ applicant in an accident that occurred on 24/11/2007. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides, awarded compensation of Rs.2, 33, 872.00. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

2. Heard Mr.Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/ 3rd opposite party and Mr.Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ applicant. The C.M.A is dismissed against the respondents 2 and 3, vide this court order dtd. 9/3/2015.

3. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned tribunal ought to have considered that the appellant/ insurer is not liable to pay any compensation due to the reason that the risk of the applicant is not covered under Ex.B1 policy. It is further contended that the learned tribunal ought to have considered that the applicant was claiming as cleaner on the vehicle involved in the accident and no premium was paid to cover the risk of the cleaner under Ex.B1 policy. As such, the appellant is not liable to be paid any compensation. It is also further contended that as per policy the name of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident was 'Ch.Dasu'. But one 'Janaki Bhaskar' was impleaded as 2nd respondent showing him as owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. As and when insured was not impleaded and liability was not fixed on the insured, indemnifying the liability of the insured by the insurer/ appellant does not arise. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the court below has rightly considered the facts and circumstances and rightly awarded compensation in accordance with law. It is further contended that during the course of employment, the accident was occurred and the applicant has sustained grievous injuries and his right hand was amputated up to elbow. Therefore, the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

5. Perused the record.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant placed on record the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., and Others", (2003) 10 SCC 664. wherein it was held as follows:

"6. Chapter XI of the Act covers the subject "Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third-Party Risks" under Sec. 146(1) of which no person shall use a motor vehicle in public unless there is a valid policy of insurance which complies with the requirements of the Chapter. The mandatory requirements of such insurance policy have been provided in Sec. 147.

7. The relevant extract of Sec. 147 is reproduced with emphasis on the words on which the appellant's case rests:

"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which

(a) * * *

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-sec. (2)-

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:

Provided that a policy shall not be required-

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the co