1990 Supreme(P&H) 901
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Ram Kumar
First Appeal Order No. 620 of 1990,
Decided On : DECEMBER 19, 1990
The insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured once the liability of the owner of the vehicle is established.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Workmen's Compensation Act - The insurance company appealed against the compensation awarded to the claimant. The court held that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured once the liability of the owner of the vehicle is established.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a truck driver, was injured in an accident while on duty. The insurance company appealed against the compensation awarded to the claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company is obligated to indemnify the insured once the liability of the owner of the vehicle is established. The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured for the compensation amount awarded to the claimant under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the liability of the owner of the vehicle is established, the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured. A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity, and the insurance company cannot deny liability for the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed, and it was held that the insurance company is obligated to indemnify the insured for the compensation amount awarded to the claimant.
Act Referred
WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT : S.3
G. R. Majithia, J.
1. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the order of Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act (for short the Act) awarding a sum of Rs.95,092.50 as compensation to the respondent/claimant.
2. The facts : The claimant was employed as a truck driver by respondent No.2. The vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. The claimant left Barwala after loading wheat in the truck bearing registration No HRS 3558 for Delhi on June 11, 1988. The truck turned turtle near Julana on Jind-Rohtak road on June 12, 1988 at 6 A. M. The claimant was being paid Rs.1,000/as monthly wages by the employer. After serving notice on the owner and the Insurance Company, he filed the petition under Sec.10 and 22 of the Act and the Commissioner came to the conclusion that she claimant received injuries in the course of employment with Anand Parkash and that he was being paid Rs.800/- P. M. as wages The vehicle was insured with the Insurer namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. He assessed the compensation at Rs.62411.0. The employer and the Insurance Company did not make the provisional payment under sub-section (2) Sec.4 of the Act and he directed that the compensation amount be paid with interest at the rate 6% per annum. The total payable comes to Rs.95,092 50.
3. . The claimant had earlier filed claim petition under Sec.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on August 17, 1988. The Oriental Insurance Company (appellant) took the objection that the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner and the petition was not maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The objection was upheld and the claim application was rejected vide order dated November 11, 1988. However, it was observed in the order that the dismissal of the claim application by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would not bar the filing of the claim petition under the Act. The application under the Act was filed after the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. When the appeal came up for motion hearing before me, it was represented that the Commissioner under the Act could not pass the order against the Insurance Company and that dismissal of the application by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal bars the maintainability of the claim application by the Commissioner. The corresponding Section of Sec.110 A of 1939 Act is Sec.165 of 1988 Act. On analysing the suction, it becomes clear that before an application could be entertained fey the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Sec.165 of 1988 Act, the cause of action should be such as could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal. It must give rise to a claim for compensation under Sec.165 of 1938 Act The accident must hare occurred due to the actionable negligence of the owner or the driver of the vehicle, causing an injury or death of third party. When the accident occurs due to actionable negligence of the driver himself, no claim can be entertained by the Claims Tribunal under Sec.165 of 1988 Ace. Sec.165 of 1988 Act would not come into play at all, for the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Sec.3 (5) of the Act would not be an embargo for making an application before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner. The same read thus :" 3 (5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workmen in any court of law in respect of any injury (a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) if an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the pro