DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur (henceforth referred to as 'Commissioner') dtd. 27/12/2012 in case WCA/CR/NO.43 to 46/2011.

(2.) The records before the Commissioner discloses that the claimants were all engaged as cleaner and loaders in a vehicle owned by the respondent No.2 herein bearing Reg.No.TN-28-H-1629 (henceforth referred to as 'offending vehicle'). It is stated that the respondent No.1 in MFA.No.30381/2013 who was employed as cleaner was paid a sum of Rs.4,000.00 as monthly salary while other claimants who are employed on daily wages were paid Rs.150.00 per day. On 15/5/2004, on instructions of the respondent No.2 the claimants were in the offending vehicle from Hospet to Chitradurga. At about 05.30 a.m., the driver of the offending vehicle who drove it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-04-A-7840. The claimants suffered injuries and were taken to Govt. Hospital for treatment and later were treated by a private doctor. The claimants contended that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment and therefore the respondent No.2 and appellant - insurer herein were liable to indemnify for the injuries sustained by them. The claimants therefore filed appropriate claim petitions under Sec. 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since the claimants had filed claim petitions belatedly, they filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petitions.

(3.) The respondent No.2 admitted the fact that the claimants were employed as cleaner and loaders in the offending vehicle and they were paying a sum of Rs.100.00 per day to each of them. He also admitted the relationship of employer and employee and that accident occurred during the course of employment. He contended that the vehicle in question was covered by a comprehensive policy and therefore the appellant is liable to indemnify the compensation that may be awarded by the Commissioner.