HINDUSTAN IDEAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PAPPU POOJARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act jurisdiction to make against the insurer of a motor vehicle, an award of compensation for deatn of or injury to, a person in an automobile accident in the course of his employment as a driver of that vehicle? This is the principal question that arises for determination in this appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Certain material facts are not in dispute. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents and respondents 3 and 4 are sisters of Sanjeeva Poojary who was employed by respondent-5 herein as driver of a motor car. While driving that car Sanjeeva Poojary met with an accident on 11-8-1966 resulting in his death. As dependents of Sanjeeva Poojary, respondents 1 to 4 made an application under S. 22 of the Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) , claiming a compensation of Rs.7,000 on the basis that the monthly salary of Sanjeeva Poojary was Rs.150.

(2.) The owner of the car (respondent-5 herein) admitted practically all the averments in that application and pleaded that as his car had been insured with the appellant, he was not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants (respondents 1 to 4 herein) and that if the Commissioner were to come to the conclusion that any compensation was payable to them, the same had to be paid by the insurer (the appellant).

(3.) The insurer filed objection in which it pleaded, inter alia, that the policy of insurance did not cover the claim advanced in that application, that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim in view of the procedure laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the M. V. Act) and that it (the insurer) was not answerable for any claim before the Commissioner.