ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SAYEEDA KHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and award passed in WCF No.59/2009 dtd. 21/7/2011 on the file of the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Koppal, District Koppal, questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance company.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is that, the claimants are the legal hears of the deceased Azam Khan, who died in an accident which occurred on 30/1/2008, contending that as per the instructions of the owner i.e. respondent No.4 herein, he was driving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-36/6712 from Kampli to Tumkur to unload the rice bags and after taking dinner on NH-13, the second driver by name Paulraj was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and when it reached near Mariyammanahalli bye-pass, in order to avoid the accident from oncoming lorry he suddenly applied the brake of the vehicle, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries and he succumbed to the accidental injuries. It is claimed that, he was working with respondent No.1 of the claim petition and he was getting salary of Rs.6,000.00 per month and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.4,15,960.00. It is the contention of the appellant herein that the Insurance company denied the relationship of employer and employee and all other contentions raised in the claim petition and also contended that, the policy does not covers the risk of the second driver and no premium has been to cover the risk of the second driver and in spite of it, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner allowed, the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner the counsel appearing for the Insurance company would vehemently contend that, the Commissioner was not justified in answering Issue No.2 by holding that, the deceased was working under the respondent No.1, who is none other than the brother of the deceased by overlooking the documentary evidence on record. It is also contended that, the Commissioner was not justified in allowing the petition when there is no contract of carrying two drivers under the policy and the deceased driver being the brother of the Insured and when no additional premium is paid to the additional driver under the policy. The counsel also contend that, the vehicles which are permitted to ply throughout the nation are permitted to carry two drivers and not the vehicles which are restricted to ply only in the particular State and that too in the present case, the deceased was going from Kampli to Tumkur which is hardly 300 kilometers distance and hence, the Commissioner has not justified in allowing the claim petition, ignoring the material and documentary evidence and hence, it requires interference of this Court.