VEERESH Vs. SIRAJ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-claimant was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No. CRA 2525, covered by insurance policy issued by respondent No. 2, insurance company. He met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of said lorry and sustained injuries in the course of employment under respondent no. 1, owner of said vehicle. So he claimed compensation from the respondents. After inquiry, the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the appellant-claimant but, having held that the insurance policy was not in force on the date of accident, dismissed the claim against the insurance company and directed the respondent No. 1, owner, alone to pay the compensation awarded. It is against the said order and award, the claimant is before this court.

(2.) IT was vehemently argued for the claimant that since the policy was valid and in force from 7. 1. 2003 to 6. 1. 2004, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation even though the insurance policy was given effect from 3. 11. 2003 (i. e. , after the accident) in favour of the respondent No. 1 due to transfer of the vehicle from previous owner, namely, ishwar M. Hampanavar. In that connection, reliance has been placed on section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and decision of the apex Court in the case of G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 781 (SC), besides decisions of this court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi, 1997 ACJ 7 (Karnataka) and mahabala v. Satyanarayana, 2004 ACJ 850 (Karnataka ). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company relying on a decision of Orissa High Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayan Dhar Swain, 1999 (1) TAG 613, submitted that as cleaner cannot be a third party, section 157 of the Act does not come to the help of the claimant-cleaner, as said provision is in Chapter XI relating to insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks and hence, the Commissioner was right in dismissing the claim against insurance company. Thus, he supported the impugned order but on different ground. Perused the records carefully.

(3.) THE substantial question of law for consideration is: