THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.367 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2009 in W.C.No.153 of 2009 (earlier numbered as W.C.No.103 of 2007) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

2. Heard Mr. Somanchi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Bommaneni Vivekananda, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Rajitha, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Brief facts:

Appellant-Insurance Company is opposite party No.2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are applicants before the Commissioner. Since respondent No.3 (owner of the vehicle) died during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.4 is brought on record as legal representative of respondent No.3.

4. On 19.07.2006 at about 12.00 P.M., the deceased with other labourers were proceeding from Ibrahimpeta on the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 24L 8291 and 8292 for loading sand at Haliya Vagu. When the vehicle reached near Kilometer Stone No.19/4, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which, he lost control and the vehicle turned turtle in the dried NSP left canal. The labourer (Marri Anjaneyulu) sustained injuries and died on the spot and other labourers also sustained injuries. Alwala Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2006 on 19.07.2006 under Sections 304A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC). At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 19 years and was earning wages of Rs.3,000/- per month. Applicants claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. Learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence of PW.1, RW.1 and Exs.A1 to A6, marked on behalf of applicants, and Ex.B1 marked on behalf of Insurance Company, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,93,574/- payable by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that Trailer was not insured and that the Tractor is insured only for agriculture purpose, but as on the date of the accident, the Tractor along with the Trailer was being used for filling up sand, which is a commercial purpose. It is further submitted that the driver of the Tractor was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle for commercial purpose as on the date of the accident. It is pointed out that Insurance Company collected premium on behalf of the driver, but not on behalf of the labourer from the owner of the vehicle.

7. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the deceased was travelling in the Trailer and the vehicle was insured and the insurance policy was valid from

08.10.2005 to 07.10.2006 and the incident occurred on 19.07.2006. It is further submitted that the deceased was working as a labourer under the employment of Opposite Party No.1 (owner of the Tractor and Trailer). It is also submitted that the Insurance Company collected a premium of Rs.25/- towards insurance policy from the owner of the vehicle, but there is no mention with respect to any other clauses, except that an amount of Rs.25/- was being collected as premium and that the Commissioner fell in error in considering the same.

8. It is submitted that the Commissioner fell in error in taking into consideration the premium which was being paid by the employer i.e., amount of Rs.25/- towards insurance policy from the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that as the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle for commercial purpose, as on the date of the accident, there is a clear violation of the terms of the policy coupled with the fact that the Trailer was not insured.

9. Learned Standing Counsel placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Cou