The court established that insurance policies covering vehicles also extend liability to employees injured during work, affirming the jurisdiction of the Employees' Compensation Commissioner.

ORDER

1. These appeals are preferred against the award dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Act, Bundi, Headquarter, Kota whereby the amount of Rs.11,89,800/- was awarded as compensation to the injured- respondent who suffered amputation resulting in 65% permanent disability while working at the mines and doing work on the loader vehicle which was duly insured under the Reliance Miscellaneous and Special Types of Vehicles Package Policy Certificate cum Policy Schedule issued by the appellant-company namely Reliance General Insurance.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a gross perversity in the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation while passing of the award. Learned counsel firstly submits that the income and compensation calculated is erroneous and does not go in confirmity with the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the policy does not cover person who has suffered injuries while working on the loader and it is only the driver alone who can claim compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act and if at all claim could have been filed the same could be as a third party claim to be set up under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Employees' Compensation Commissioner has acted beyond his jurisdiction to hear the petition and pass an award. Learned counsel further submits that the injured claimant was not working as a driver on the vehicle and was shown to have been caused injuries while he was screwing the bolts of the loader when the driver of the vehicle without information started the vehicle resulting in causing severe injury to his hand which was amputated. Therefore he submits that the claimant cannot be said to be actually working as a driver on the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court dated 10.11.2006 in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. : Appeal(civil) 4778 of 2006.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that admittedly a policy Exhibit-11 was issued after receiving a huge premium of sum of Rs.5,789/- known as a Reliance miscellaneous special type of vehicle package policy. The conditions of the said policy not only covered the driver but also under the limits of liability it covered death of or bodily injury to any person so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Accidents Act. Learned counsel submits that apart from premium for driver and legal liability premium the actual total liability premium company also charged package premium of Rs.5,248/-. Thus it covers even an employee who was severely injured while working on the loader(vehicle) if the vehicle is insured as above and the Insurance Company cannot absolve itself from the liability of payment. The respondent had rightly approached the Employees' Compensation Commissioner as he was admittedly an employee working in the mines and would be covered under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for the payment of compensation.

6. I have considered the submissions and find that the appellants had exhibited the policy certificate which was issued for the vehicle by the name of Reliance Miscellaneous Special Types of Vehicles Package Policy Certificate cum Policy Schedule. As per the said policy following conditions were laid down:-

Limitation as to use

The policy covers use for any purpose other than a. Organized racing b. Pace making c. speed testing, d. Reliability trials e. Use for carriage of passengers for hire or reward

Person/Classes of Persons entitled to drive:

Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license provided also that the person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such a pers