Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 972
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RANI, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UGILLA RAMULU AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
CMA/1337/2011
Insurance companies may be held liable for compensation claims even if their policies have limitations, based on established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 3 and 4 - Liability of insurance company in compensation claims - The court affirmed that both the insurance company and the tractor owner were jointly and severally liable for compensation to the deceased’s parents - The deceased was a labourer who died during the course of employment due to negligence by the tractor driver. (Paras 10, 11, 24)
(B) Insurance Policy - Coverage limitations - The insurance company contended that the deceased was not covered under the policy as it was only for the driver, and thus should not be liable for compensation. The court ruled based on precedents that the insurance company must pay and recover from the tractor owner. (Paras 14, 23)
(C) Compensation Quantum - The Commissioner assessed compensation based on minimum wage and determined the amount to be Rs.2,23,990/- with interest. (Paras 11, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a compensation claim after the deceased workman, while employed, fell from a tractor and died due to injuries sustained. The applicants, parents of the deceased, sought compensation from the tractor owner and the insurance company.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation amount to the applicants and could recover from the tractor owner.
Issues: The main issues were whether the insurance company was liable for compensation and the correct interpretation of the insurance policy coverage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the insurance company must indemnify the tractor owner for the liability incurred, despite the policy's limitations, based on established legal precedents.
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed directing the insurance company to pay and recover.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-opposite party No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2010 passed in W.C. No.9 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the applicants, parents of the deceased workman and the respondent No.3 was the opposite party No.2, owner of the tractor bearing No.AP 25 E 12.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.
4. The case of the applicants was that their son Bikshapathi, aged about 21 years, was working as a labourer on the tractor of the opposite party No.2 and he was paid Rs.4,000/- per month as salary and batta of Rs.100/- per day. On 09.05.2002, the opposite party No.2 instructed the deceased workman Bikshapathi to go on the tractor to get the cultivator from the fields of one Ravindra Babu along with the tractor driver V. Prasad Rao. On his instructions, while the deceased workman along with the driver V. Prasada Rao, were going to the fields and when they reached the outskirts of Karlapata, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the deceased workman fell down from the tractor, came under the back wheels, sustained fatal injuries and while being shifted to the Government Hospital, Bodhan, succumbed to the injuries on the way. The Police, Bodhan, registered a case in Crime No.120/2002 and transferred the same to Biloli Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.
5. The applicants claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 contending that they were jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
6. The opposite party No.1 i.e. Insurance Company filed written statement calling for strict proof of the averments stated in the application. The opposite party No.1 contended that except the driver, no one could travel on the tractor and as the opposite party No.2 allowed the deceased to travel on the tractor against the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party No.2 alone was liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the application with costs.
7. The opposite party No.2 filed written statement admitting the employment of the deceased as a workman under him on his tractor bearing No.AP 25 E 12 and that he was being paid Rs.200/- per day as labour charges. The opposite party No.2 contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased workman himself. His tractor was validly insured with the opposite partyNo.1 vide cover note No.128967 for the period from 09.06.2001 to 08.06.2002 covering the date of accident on 09.05.2002. The driver was holding valid driving licence as such, they were not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim application against them.
8. During the course of enquiry, the applicant No.1 i.e. father of the deceased, examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
9. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, held that as per the admission of the opposite partyNo.2, the deceased was working as a labourer under him and met with an accident and died while he was being shifted to the hospital, as such, the deceased died during the course of and out of his employment with opposite party No.2.
10. The learned Commissioner by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Prembai Patel and others, AIR 2005 SC 2337; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 SC, and of the High Court of Karnataka in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Thukaram Adappa and Others, 2007 ACJ 1497 held that the opposite party No.1 could not escape its liability and bound to indemnify the opposite party No.2 in payment of compensation to
