1978 Supreme(Mad) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Sethuraman, J.
C. Abdul Salara .....Appellant(s)
Versus
A. A. Jaleel and others .....Respondent(s)
A.A.O. No. 259 of 1976.
Decided On : 22 September 1978
G.M. Nathan and P. R. Raishnan, for Appellant.
S. J. Jayadev, Kurian Arumugam and Joseph, for Respondents.
Award of compensation under W.M. Compensation Act.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 95-Fixation of statutory liability-Accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of lorry-Compensation awarded under workmens compensation Act to the injured cleaner f the lorry.
2. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and awarded Rs. 4,900 as damages payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Rs. 15,100 as damages under the general law. The damages payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was decreed as against respondents 2 and 3 herein, the insurance companies, while the damages payable under the general law was decreed as against the appellant the owner of the vehicle. The appellant contends in the present appeal that even as regards the amount due as compensation under the general law, the amount would have to be paid by the insurance companies and not by him Therefore, the only point that requires consideration in the present appeal is, whether the liability of the insurance companies could be restricted, only to the sum payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
3. In this connection three decisions were brought to my notics, two of them being the decisions of this Court and one being of the Allahabad High Court. In Venkataraman v. Abdul Munaf Sahib1 the cleaner of a lorry died in an accident on account of the negligence of the driver of the lorry. His dependants filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal. The contention urged on behalf of the insurance company was that it was not liable to pay any compensation in respect of an employee of the insured and that even assuming that it was liable to pay compensation its liability had to be restricted to the amount payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There was also the plea that the amount due under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, had to be pursued only before the authorities contemplated by that Act and not before the Tribunal. It was held by Maharajan, J., that section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act provided for a statutory duty on the insurance company to indemnify the insured against any liability to Pay compensation to his employ