THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.762 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2014 passed in W.C.No.19 of 2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (F.A.C) : T.Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavanam : RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’).

2. Heard Mr. V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company, none appears for respondents.

3. One Mohd. Nooruddin Hassan (deceased) was an Assistant of Mohd. Esakuddin. Mohd. Esakuddin is a Mechanic of road roller and resident of Hyderabad. On receiving a phone call from Opposite Party No.1 (owner), on 15.12.2009 to repair a road roller, deceased (Assistant) and the mechanic went to repair the road roller to Kurnool. On 16.12.2009, when both were attending to the repair work of road roller, engine of road roller fell on the Assistant (deceased) and he died. Incident occurred on 16.12.2009, at about 14:00 hours. Insurance Policy and death of the person. Insurance Policy bearing No.150100/31/09/6700013492 was valid from 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010, covering the risk of one employee under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as on the date of accident. Ex.A6 is the Insurance Policy, amount of Rs.25/-, premium was collected towards risk of one employee. These facts are not in dispute. Applicants claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with interest @18% per annum. Commissioner considered evidence of AW1 (for applicants) and RW1 (for Insurance Company) and exhibits marked i.e., Exs.A1 to A6 (for applicants), awarded compensation of Rs.4,42,280/- with interest @12% per annum from Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay from 17.01.2010 till date of realization. Order of Commissioner is dated 24.02.2014 in W.C.No.19 of 2010, this order is under challenge in present CMA.

4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, that the deceased cannot be termed as an employee, the premium was paid only for the driver. It is further submitted that the vehicle (road roller) involved in the accident had a driver and insurance is paid for the driver. It is also submitted that contractor engaged the road roller for contract works, it was halted, as there was an engine problem, contractor called the mechanic and that during the engine repair work, deceased died, hence, Insurance Company is not liable.

5. It is submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between owner of the road roller and the deceased and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the premium collected was for driver.

6. Heard learned counsel for Insurance Company, perused the record and considered the submission.

7. On 16.12.2009, deceased along with one Mohd. Esakuddin was repairing the engine of road roller on a call by the contractor/owner of road roller. The engine of road roller fell on the deceased and he died. Road roller was insured by Opposite Party No.1 (Owner/Contractor) with Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company), policy was valid from 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010 (Ex.A6). Policy was covering the risk of one employee, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Premium of Rs.25/- was collected towards the coverage of risk of one employee. It is not mentioned that premium collected was for driver and not for any other. Claim is under Workmen’s Compensation Act, premium collected to cover the risk of one employee, does not exclude the mechanic. The word one employee can be inferred to be a driver, cleaner or any other employee. There is nothing under law that the word employee excludes mechanic. Applicant cannot be denied compensation on the ground of payment of premium alone as contended by the counsel for Insurance Company. As per Section 147(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a statutory liability to cover the risk o