The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Shaik Noorjahan Begum And 6 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 800 OF 2005 (Appeal filed Under Seclion 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2001 passed in W.C.Case No.150 of 2003(F),on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda) Between:

The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office-ll, Anasurya Complex, 3-6-10, H imayathnagar, P. B. No.1051 , Hyderabad, rep by its Divisional Manager. ..,APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 AND

1. Shaik Noorjahan Begum, W/o. Late China Moulana, Age:30 years Occ: Household

2. Shaik Shaheena, D/o. Late China Moulana, Age:12 years

3. Shaik Arif, S/o. Late China N.4oulana Age:s years

4. Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late China Moulana, Age:3 years

5. Shaik Wali Saheb, S/o. Lal Saheb Age:60 years

6. Shaik Mastan Bee, Wio. Wali Saheb Age:55 years, Occ:Household. All areR/o. Yerrupalem Village & hilandal, Khammam District. Respondents No.2 to 5 are Minors represented by their Mother Respondent:1.

7. B. Venkateshwarlu, s/o. Pedda Beeraiah. Ownerof ..^"::::::r:::;::T:]: 5421 P'/o. Konijerla (V), Khammam M & D.

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.1 MAMP. NO: 15076 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant interim stay of withdrawal of the deposited amount of RS. 2,09,660/- to the credit of W.C. Case.No.150 of 2003 [F], on the file of CWC & ACL, Nalgonda by the R-'1 . CMAMP. NO: 1438 OF 2000 Between:

l.Shaik Noorjahan Begum, W/o. Late China Moulana, Age:30 years Occ: Household 2.Shaik Shaheena, D/o. Late China Moulana, Age:'l2years 3.Shaik Arif, S/o. Late China lvloulana Age: 5 years 4.Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late China Moulana, Age:3 years 5.Shaik Wali Saheb, S/o. Lal Saheb Age:60 years

.r/ All are Fl,/o. Yerrupalem Village & Mandal, Khammam District, Respondents No.2 to 5 i re Minors represented by their Mother Respondent:1 ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. The New lndia Assuranc€ Co. Ltd, Divisional Office-ll, Anasurya Complex 3-6-10, Himayathnagar, P B.No.1051,Hyderabad,rep by its Divisionat Manager ,,,,RESPONOENT/PETITIONER z. Shaik Musran Bee,w/o Wi li Saheb(died)

3. B. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. F:dda Beeraiah, Occ: Owner of Eicher Tractor bearing No. AP 36 T 5421, Wo. Kr nijerla (V), Khammam t\,4 & D. (Respondent No,3 ls not necesr ary party in this petition) Petition under section 151 cPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the counter affidavit filed in support of he petition, the High court may be pteased to vacate the interim stay granted on 13.10.200/, in cMP No.15076 of 2004, in cMA.No.800 of 2005. Counsel for the Appellant SRl. T RAMULU Counsel for Respondent i rCMA Nos. 'l to 6: SRI V. RAGHU counsel for Respondent t o.7 : sRt M. v. DURGA PRASAD The Court made the follov ing JUDGMENT:

/ .tHE HONOUITAI}I-E SMT JUSTIC-E P. MADHAVI DEVI ().u000F2005 }IISCI:I-I,A\EO[]s APP T,ALN CIV IIJUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is file<i by the New lndia Assurance ComPanY Limited against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatton and Assistant Commissioner of l-abour' Nalgonda in W.C.No 150 of dt.30.04.2004'

2.

Brief facts leading ro the filing of this Appeai are that one sri Shaik Moulana worked as labourer on the tractor bearing No'AP 367 5421' On 2O'12'2OO2at about 4'00 AM' when he was retuming from Kodad to Janare<ldynagar in the tractor after completion of repairs of the tractol', therc was an accident and the labourer died on the spot' The dependents of the deceased filed claim petition before the Commissioner fot' Workmen's Compensation stating that the deceased was 32 years old and was in receipt of Rs'3'000/- per month towards wages. The Opposite Parly No'2-insurance company had contended before the Commissioner that the accident had occurred at 4'00 A'M' on 20 '122002and there was no neetl for the labourer to be there on the tractor' 'l'hc Commissioncr htlwcver did not agree with this contention of Opposite Party No 2 and held that there was no rule that the vehicles could not bc plied in thc r.rights or that the labourers need

C.M.A.No.800 of 2005 not be with thr vehicles in the night. He also obsen ed that the deceased accon panied the tractor to help the driver in getting it repaired. As reg rrds the second objection of thc Opposite Partv No.2 that the labout't rs are not covered under the policy ar-ril hence the lnsllrancc coln lanv ts l1o1 responsible li;r the l)a)'ment o1compensatiou. t Ie Comrnissioner observed that the policl shorvs that thc premiun'r of Rs.5 I 0/- was collectecl lbr the tlrilol ancl tlre policy does not specr S any condition ol non-coverage ol crnployees, engaged on the tractol'. I{e thus rejected the secortd ob-iection also of the Opposite Pa 1y No.2 and accordingly he awarded a contpcnsation ofRs.2,09,660/- for the death of'the deceased in the accident 3.

The insu ance company has llled this Appeal stating that the insurance polic' of Opposite Party No.l does not covel the risk ol'the labourer as no additional premium was paid lbr covcrage of the labourer. 'l'he rppellant places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Suprer re Court in the case of National Insurance Oompany Limited Vs. . ugal Kishore and othersr anrl also thc casc of Ramashrya Sirrgh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited2. 4.

l,earned counsel for the appellant insurance corlpany, Sri P Rarnulu, also p aced reliance upon the decision ol the Iligh Court tbr the State of Te ansana and tl-re State of Andhra Pradesh rn the case o1' New lndia As rurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its l)i! isional Nlanager, ' r98s 1t I ec.t zzo ' zoo3 1:y ec: I 550 (2003) ro scc 664

C.M.A.No.800 of 2005 Kurnool Vs. Kurva Nagamma and otherss, wherein after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramashrya Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2 supra), the High Court has held that while Motor Vehicles Act protects the interests of the driver of every motor vehicle, the Conductor or Ticket Exarniner of a public service vehicle and an employee of a goods carriage vehicle, no such protection is available to any other category of employees or persons unless their risk is covered by payment of premium. In the said case, the Hon,ble High Court also considered that the policy required payment of Rs.15/- for covering the risk ol' each person other than the driver and cleaner. Since no such premium was paid, it was held that the policy did not cover the labourers.

Sirnilar decision was also given in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nizamabad Vs. Zahecr Ahmed and othcrsa, wherein it was held that where insurance policy shows that the owner of the lorry paid premium only for.two persons, i.e., for driver and cleaner being the two employees covered by the policy under the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the injured claimants i.e., labourers are not covered by the policy. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

-l C M.A No.E00 of 2005 5.

Learned c )unsel for the claimants, Sri M.V. I)urga Prasad, on the other hand, L as frled a copy of thc insurance policy to suggest that the premiunr wa; paid tbr the trailor u'hich also covers the labotlrers who were on th( trailor. l le also placed reliance Lrpon the decision ol this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kaclapa Vs. Pujzrla Chench r Nagaiah and otherss, wherein rt was held that the contention of tl e appellant insurance company that it is not under obligation to co er liability arising out ofdeath or boclily initrlies to a cleaner, unless e rtra premium is paid, cannot be accepted. 6.

Having re gard to the rival contentions, this Court flnds that the decision o1'this loun in the case of New lndia Assurance (b. Ltd., Kaclapa Vs. l'] ujala Chenchu Nagaiah ancl others ( 5 supra) IS distinguishable ;n I'acts as in that case the deceasecl was a clcaner ol' the vehicle. \^'h( reas in the case on harrd. the deceasc'd uas a labourer and his case i; clearly covered by thc clecision ol' the on'ble Supreme Cour in the casc ol \ational Insurancc (ornpanl' Linrited Vs. J rgal Kishorc and others ( I surpra) as well as the decision o1'this Court in the casc of New lndia Assurancc (lo. Ltd.. Kadapa \'-s. 'ujala Chenchu Nagaiah zrnd others (5 supra). Admittedly. in this oase, thc policy did not include the risk of the labourer and th: owner had not paid any extra prer-r-riurn to cover the persons other tt an the driver and the cleaner. ln sr"rch cases. tlie owner ' ztt r r 1r1 alo slo

C.M.A.No.800 of 2005 of thc vchiclc shall be responsible lor the injury caused to the third party. However. the insurance companv would have to make the payment of compcnsation to the claimants under the Workrnen's Compensatiorr and therealier recover tl'om the owner ol the vehicle, who has breacl.red the oonditions of the policy, as held by this Court in the case o1'New lndi:r Assurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Vs. Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah and others (5 supra). 'l'herefore, the Appeal ol the insurance company as against respondents I to 6 is dismissed. As against respondent No.7 is concerned, from the copy of the insurance policy, the trailor is insured asa non-agricultural vehicle and therefore, there is no violation of any of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therelorc, the appeal againsl respondent No.7 is also dismissed.

1.

'l'he Civil Miscellancous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No ordcr as t0 c()sts.

tt, Pending misccilaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismisscd SD/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Comissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour: at Nalgonda (with records) One CC to SRl. T. RA[/ULU, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. V. RAGHU, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRl. M.V. DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies One Spare Copy 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

PCSD R

HIGH COURT DATED:.3111212021

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.800 of 2005 0 7 ri Dismissing the CN{,\ NO COS'I'S ar ,(&