The liability of the insurance company under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is contingent on the payment of additional premium for covering the risk of the labourers, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are applicable to the Act.

ORDER :

P.SREE SUDHA, J.

1. C.M.A.No.635 of 2005 is preferred by the New India Assurance Company, against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, in W.C.No.64 of 2003 dated 30.04.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.94,719/- to the applicant.

2. C.M.A.No.1237 of 2005 is preferred by the New India Assurance Company, against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, in W.C.No.99 of 2002 dated 17.06.2003 whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,13,864/- to the applicant.

3. C.M.A.No.334 of 2008 is preferred by the New India Assurance Company, against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, in W.C.No.17 of 2003 dated 30.04.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,42,078/- to the applicant.

4. C.M.A.No.528 of 2008 is preferred by the New India Assurance Company, against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, in W.C.No.11 of 2003 dated 30.04.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.74,976/- to the applicant.

5. C.M.A.No.109 of 2011 is preferred by the New India Assurance Company, against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, in W.C.No.62 of 2003 dated 30.04.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.68,335/- to the applicant.

6. C.M.A.No.854 of 2011 is preferred by the New India Assurance Company, against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, in W.C.No.16 of 2003 dated 30.04.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,13,864/- to the applicant.

7. Though the Commissioner disposed of the cases individually, in view of the fact that the appeals arise out of the same crime, they are amenable for disposal by way of this common order.

8. The applicants viz., Ramavath Bashya, Ramavath Anasurya, Ramavath Balu, Ramavath Budda, Ramavath Keshya and Ramavath Bujji and others respectively, were working as labourers for loading and unloading purpose on the lorry bearing No.AAP-9441 belonging to the second respondent herein. The said lorry was covered under Policy Cover Note No.152908 valid from 23.12.2001 to 22.12.2002 issued by New India Assurance Company Limited. On 22.07.2002 while the applicants are on duty, the lorry met with an accident, due to which the applicants and other labourers received grievous injuries and three of them died on spot. The applicants filed the above cases seeking compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

9. The Commissioner in his order dated 30.04.2004 observed that ‘in common parlance, other than the insured and insurer, every other person who suffered injury or death by the use of the vehicle can be taken as third parties. Therefore, the driver, cleaner and labourers also come under this category. The insurance company failed to bring in any authority to negate these categories as third parties. Therefore, I am convinced that despite of breach of policy if any, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the insured.’ The Commissioner also relied upon a case in ANIL CHANDRA SHARMA V/s. ALKA RANI GHOSH, 1999 1 LLJ 1356 holding to the effect that ‘it is almost settled law that whenever the commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation deals with cases of claimants of motor transport undertakings, the Insurance Policies are to be interpreted on the lines of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the M.V.Act, 1998. Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has no place for consideration. As a result, I hold both the Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation to the dependants of the deceased and in case of any breach of policy condition, the Opposite Party No.2