The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to employees injured during the course of their employment if the policy of insurance covers the employees and the vehicle involved.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals are filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur (henceforth referred to as 'Commissioner') dated 27.12.2012 in case WCA/CR/NO.43 to 46/2011.

2. The records before the Commissioner discloses that the claimants were all engaged as cleaner and loaders in a vehicle owned by the respondent No.2 herein bearing Reg.No.TN-28-H-1629 (henceforth referred to as 'offending vehicle'). It is stated that the respondent No.1 in MFA.No.30381/2013 who was employed as cleaner was paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary while other claimants who are employed on daily wages were paid Rs.150/- per day. On 15.05.2004, on instructions of the respondent No.2 the claimants were in the offending vehicle from Hospet to Chitradurga. At about 05.30 a.m., the driver of the offending vehicle who drove it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-04-A-7840. The claimants suffered injuries and were taken to Govt. Hospital for treatment and later were treated by a private doctor. The claimants contended that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment and therefore the respondent No.2 and appellant - insurer herein were liable to indemnify for the injuries sustained by them. The claimants therefore filed appropriate claim petitions under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since the claimants had filed claim petitions belatedly, they filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petitions.

3. The respondent No.2 admitted the fact that the claimants were employed as cleaner and loaders in the offending vehicle and they were paying a sum of Rs.100/- per day to each of them. He also admitted the relationship of employer and employee and that accident occurred during the course of employment. He contended that the vehicle in question was covered by a comprehensive policy and therefore the appellant is liable to indemnify the compensation that may be awarded by the Commissioner.

4. The appellant - insurer contested the claim petitions and denied the relationship of employee and employer between the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle. It contended that the claimants were all unauthorized gratuitous passengers and therefore the policy of insurance did not cover the risk to gratuitous passengers. It contended that the claimants were not residing in the addresses mentioned in the cause title. It further claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess authorization to drive the offending vehicle and therefore there was violation of the terms of insurance policy.

5. Based on these rival contentions the claim petitions were set down for trial.

6. The claimants examined themselves and marked common documents as Exs.A.1 to A.16. The appellant - insurer examined its official as DW.1 and marked exhibits Ex.D.1 and 2.

7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for claiming compensation. It further held that the claimants were all employed in the offending vehicle as cleaner and loaders on daily wages. The Commissioner held that each of the claimants were paid a monthly payment of Rs.3,000/- and having regard to the evidence of the doctor who treated the claimants that the claimants had suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 45%, determined the following compensation:-