Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Pushp Kanwar W/o Late Ram Singh Shekhawat – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2709 of 2013, 1267 of 2014
Decided On : 10-05-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Hem Singh Rathore, Mr. Vinay Mathur, Mr. Mahendra Singh.
Headnote:
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 2, 2dd – Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together – Held, Appellants would be entitled to get a further sum of Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount within a period of two months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order – Enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is madeIt is made clear that Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the enhanced amount from owner of vehicle i.e. respondent No. 2 – Learned Tribunal shall disburse in Joint Saving Bank Account of appellants and balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on deposit shall be paid to the appellant-claimant on monthly basis – Appeal is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together.
In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2709/2013
2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 25/2010 whereby claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 14,25,775/- was awarded as compensation.
3. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the appellant is not liable to make payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent for the reason that the vehicle in question was insured under an ‘Act Only’ Policy and as per the terms and conditions of the policy and also as per the endorsement of IMT Nos. 47 and 40, the premium of 2WC Employees i.e. Rs. 50/- was taken.
4. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the claim petition the claimants-respondents themselves have mentioned that the deceased Ram Singh was working as a Helper Technician upon the crane, while in the FIR, this status was not mentioned.
5. Counsel further submitted that perusal of the ITR Ex.16, indicates that the deceased Ram Singh was a salaried person working with M/s Speedline Motors Pvt. Ltd. hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of compensation as no premium was taken.
6. In this regard, he further submitted that bare perusal of the Insurance Policy indicates that this policy covers IMT endorsements No. 47 and 40 and as per IMT endorsement No. 40, the legal liability to pay is confined to driver/conductor and/cleaner employed in connection with the operation of motor vehicle. So, the Tribunal has committed gross illegality in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimants-respondents.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 i.e. owner of the vehicle submitted that the insurance policy i.e. Ex.NA-1 is a comprehensive policy and it covers the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment of compensation for the death of helper technician. He further submitted that in the reply, it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was working as a Helper Technician on the crane, belonging to respondent No. 6. And, the term Helper Technician is also covered in the IMT endorsement No. 40 and the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimant-respondents.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 further submitted that as per Section 2dd of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) the word employee means a person who is a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with the motor vehicle.
9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that amendment in Section 2dd (II)(C) was made by the way of substitution by Act of 45 of 2009 and the same came into force w.e.f. 18.01.2010, while the accident was occurred on 20.12.2008, hence, the amendment to Section 2dd (II)(C) is not having any retrospective application in the present case.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents also opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company, but not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the Insurance Company.
11. Heard. Considered the arguments of both sides.
12. Bare perusal of the Insurance Policy (Ex.NA-1) clearly indicates that this policy was an ‘Act Only’ Policy and the premium of 2WC Employees was taken and as per the IMT Endorsement, it covers the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of the endorsement Nos. 47 and 40. IMT No. 40 deals with the legal liabi
