Honble RUMA PAL, J.–Leave granted.

The appellant is the owner of a vehicle, described as a `trekker, in which passengers are carried for hire. He employed Shashi Bhushan Singh as a ``Khalasi of the vehicle. On 21.10.1998 the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which Shashi Bhushan Singh died. The legal heirs of the deceased employee filed a claim in the Workmens Compensation Court against the appellant, as the owner of the vehicle, and against the respondent Insurance Company. The Workmens Compensation Court held that the vehicle had been comprehensively insured with the respondent and the since the accident had occurred during the period of insurance, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation on account of the death of the employee. The respondent was, therefore, directed to deposit the compensation determined under the provisions of The Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.

(2). The decision was challenged by the respondent before the High Court at Patna under Art. 226. The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that in the absence of any special contract between the appellant and the respondent, the rights of the parties were governed by statute which did not require the respondent to cover liability in respect of an accident to a Khalasi. The statute in question is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as the Act).

(3). The appellant has impugned the decision of the High Court before this Court, primarily on the ground the the High Court had misconstrued the provision of the ACt and in particular Clause (b) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 147. It was contended that the insurance policy expressly covered the death or injury to the Khalasi. Our attention was drawn to the insurance certificate where under the heading ``Particulars of the vehicle insured there is a column which refers to ``Seating capacity including Driver and Cleaner. Under this sub-head the figure ``13+1 has been inserted. A Cleaner, as accepted by both parties before us, would include a Khalasi. The appellant submitted that he had paid premium on the basis of 13+1 to cover the liability in question.

(4). The respondent has refuted the claim that any additional premium was paid to cover the risk pertaining to a khalasi. It is contended that in terms of the insurance policy, as also under the provisions of Sec. 147(1)(b), no employee of the insured apart from the Driver was covered.

(5). 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.

(6). The relevant extract of Sec. 147 is reproduced with emphasis on the words on which the appellants case rests:

``Section 147: Requirements of polices 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) x x x x x x

(b) insures the person or clauses 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 services 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 our of and in the course of his employment,of the employee of person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmens Compensation aCt, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document