Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Geeta Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sant Kali Saini and Another – Respondents
First Appeal from Order No. 277 of 2010
Decided On : 15-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj.
For the Respondents: R.L. Verma, P.P. Chauhan, B.M. Chauhan, Amit Himalvi.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 - Section 22 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(21), 2(15), 2(48) , 10(2)(d) , 3 , 2(21) and 10(2)(d) - Workman Compensation Rules 1924 - Rule 20 - Compensation - Heavy goods vehicle - Employed by respondent No. 1 herein, as Driver in her vehicle, having met with an accident, during the course of employment of the aforesaid workman died on spot - Appellant No. 1, being wife of deceased and appellants being son and daughter, respectively maintained an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 read with Rule 20 of Workman Compensation Rules 1924, for award of the compensation. On various grounds appellants claimed compensation to the tune alognwith interest and penalty, as envisaged under law - Appellants alleged that, as the vehicle was duly insured, so insurer liable to indemnify compensation amount – Held, Light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘un-laden weight’ of which does not exceed and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “un-laden weight” of which does not kg - Effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in year and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle - Supreme Court, relevant excerpts Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to learned Commissioner below to render its decision afresh keeping in view the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind - Commissioner below to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records of this case - Parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner - Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
1. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellants, who were petitioners/applicants before the learned Commissioner below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) against the award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's compensation Act-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu, H.P. in Case No. 8/2007, decided on 22.03.2010.
2. Briefly stating the facts giving right to the present appeal are that late Sh. Devi Nagar Koti was a workman, employed by respondent No. 1 herein, as Driver in her vehicle, having Registration No. HP-01A-3401, which, on 25.06.2007 met with an accident, during the course of employment of the aforesaid workman and Sh. Devi Nagar Koti died on the spot. Appellant No. 1, being the wife of the deceased and appellants No. 2 and 3, being the son and daughter, respectively, of the deceased, maintained an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 read with Rule 20 of the Workman Compensation Rules 1924, for the award of the compensation. On various grounds the appellants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lac) alognwith interest and penalty, as envisaged under the law. The appellants alleged that, as the vehicle was duly insured, so insurer (respondent No. 2 herein) is liable to indemnify the compensation amount.
3. The learned Commissioner below has framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and drawing Rs. 4,000/- p.m.? OPP
2. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment with respondent No. 2? OPP
3. Whether the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased? OPP
4. Whether the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2? OPR-1
5. Whether the deceased was holding valid and effective license? OPR-1
6. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if yes to what extent? OPP
7. Relief.”
4. After deciding issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of the appellants, issue No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 1, issue No. 5 against respondent No. 1 and issue No. 6 in favour of the appellants, the petition was allowed and the learned Commissioner below awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,91,750/- (rupees three lac ninety one thousand seven fifty) to the appellants herein.
5. Heard. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Commissioner below has wrongly fastened the liability of compensation upon respondent No. 1 (owner of the vehicle in question) and it should have been on respondent No. 2 (insurer, i.e. New India Insurance Company), as the vehicle was being plied as per the terms of the insurance policy. He has further argued that the appeal may be allowed and the liability may be shifted upon respondent No. 2, as respondent No. 2 is liable to make the payment of the amount and indemnify the owner. Lastly, he has prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award may be modified and compensation amount may be imposed upon respondent No. 2. On the other hand, Mr. R.L. Verma and Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, has argued that they have no objection in case the appeal is allowed and the liability to pay the awarded compensation is imposed upon respondent No. 2. They have further argued that the appeal may be disposed of accordingly. Conversely, Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learner Senior Counsel, for respondent No. 2 (insurer) has argued that the appeal is not maintainable, as the appellants are not aggrieved party. The appellants are only concerned with the compensation, so they have no right to say that the compensation amount should have been awarded against respondent No. 2, as it is immaterial whether they get compensation amount from respondent No. 1 or from respondent No. 2, their right to compensation is not affected in any manner. He has further argued that the appeal is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The learned Commissi
