The insurance policy's terms and conditions, including the coverage of risk for employees, are crucial in determining the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants/claimants have challenged the impugned Judgment and award to the extent of exonerating respondent No.2/insurance company from the liability to make payment of compensation.

2. The dispute in narrow compass is as under :-

(a) Uddhav S/o Raosaheb Sonawane (since deceased) was stated to be in the employment of respondent No.1 as a cleaner on his truck bearing No. MH-16-Q-6129 from 1/1/2013 till the date of accident. There was employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle.

(b) On 14/8/2015, deceased was proceeding towards Nanded with driver on above said truck as per the directions of respondent No.1. The said truck reached near Yashwanti Dhaba at Jalna Mantha Road. When the truck was stopped by the driver on the side of the road, the truck driver instructed to the cleaner/deceased to check air pressure of the tyres and radiator water. The deceased stepped down from the truck when unknown vehicle gave dash to the deceased from the backside and ran away from the spot. The deceased was seriously injured in the accident and succumbed to injuries in the Government hospital at Jalna. Crime No.109/2015 came to be registered against unknown vehicle. It is the case of the claimants that the said accident occurred during the course and out of the employment of deceased with respondent No.1/owner of the truck. The said truck was duly insured with respondent No.2/insurance company. As such, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Notice in respect of demand of compensation was issued to the respondents but the respondents failed to pay compensation. The appellants/claimants filed the claim vide Application W.C. No.02/2016 before the Judge, Labour Court at Aurangabad and sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 with interest @ 12% per annum.

(c) The learned Judge, Labour Court after considering the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and argument advanced on behalf of both the sides was pleased to award compensation of Rs.8,31,920.00 along with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till its realization by fastening liability on respondent No.1/owner of the truck. The learned Judge, Labour Court/Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation also pleased to issue directions to respondent No.1 to pay penalty of 50% on the amount of compensation. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability by holding that the risk of the deceased was not covered by the policy.

(d) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court-1, Aurangabad the original claimants have preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Mr S.S. Dargad, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Mr V.R. Mundada, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company and Ms Sayali Tekale holding for Mr Prasanna Dadape, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

4. Mr Dargad, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the truck involved in the accident was duly insured with respondent No.2 on the date of accident. According to the terms of the insurance policy, it was a package policy. The premium in respect of IMP 28 is accepted by respondent No.2/insurance company, and therefore, risk of deceased cleaner is covered. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal has erred in examining terms of the package policy which is on record while recording findings against issue No.3. He therefore urged to allow the appeal.

5. Mr Dargad, learned counsel has placed his reliance on the following citations :-

(i) Ramchandra Vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 84 .

(ii) Mr Nagu Naik Vs. Swapnesh Prabhu reported in 2015 S