Order on Board

15/09/2022

1. The present is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal is by the insurance company which had insured the vehicle belonging to the respondent No.5 in the appeal.

2. It is a case where the respondent No.5-Pratapchand Sahu owns a Metador bearing registration No. CG-07/C-8529. In the said vehicle the deceased Bhikham Ram Thakur, aged around 22 years was engaged to work as 'Coolie' for loading and transportation of 'Murrum'. In the course of loading of Murrum into the Metador on 02.06.2009, since there was a land slide, the deceased Bhikham Ram got crushed and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased Bhikham Ram, who filed a claim before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act.

3. The learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 i.e. Labour Court, Durg registered the case as Case No. 32/WC Act/2010/Fetal and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,87,781 with interest @ 12% in the event if the compensation amount is not paid within a period of 45 days.

4. The solitary contention raised by the insurance company assailing the award is that the policy that was issued by the insurance company is one under Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the insurance company cannot be forced to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for an accident that has arisen not in the course of the use of the vehicle. Secondly, the payment of compensation cannot be fastened upon the insurance company as the insurance was only covering the risk of the operation of the vehicle and the risk was not covered for the employees engaged by the employer.

5. This Court on perusal of records finds that the admitted factual matrix as is reveled from the pleadings is that the vehicle belonged to respondent No.5- Mr. Pratapchand Sahu in the instant appeal i.e. the respondent No.2 before the Labour Court, he was the owner of the Metador bearing registration no. CG 07/C-8529. The said Metador was being used for transportation of Murrun and other goods items. The deceased Bhikham Ram Sahu was engaged as a ‘Coolie’ in the said vehicle. The policy issued by the appellant- insurance company covers the risk of the employee engaged in the course of operation of the said vehicle. Thus, there was a direct nexus between the owner and the deceased.

6. Further, from the pleadings, it is also reflected that the accident occurred when the vehicle on which the deceased was working as a coolie was taken to the mines for loading Murrum. In the course of loading of Murrum, there was a mud slide under which the deceased got crushed. From the aforesaid pleadings which is not disputed by the insurance company, there also seems to be a direct as also causal connection so far as the employer and the employee is concerned and further then the employee the deceased Bhikham Ram Sahu in fact discharging the duties of loading the vehicle. For the aforesaid reason, this Court finds that the claim of the claimants before the Court below squarely falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and there being no substantial question of law available in the present case.

7. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.