K NAGAVENI Vs. SIDDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramanjaneyalu was employed as a cleaner in a passenger bus under the appellant. During journey the bus broke down. The mechanic and the cleaner (deceased) were attending to the repair work. Stones were put at the tyres to keep the vehicle immobile during the time of repair. The deceased was removing the stones after repair. The driver imprudently started the bus and made movement, as a result the deceased was run over.

(2.) THE Workmen's Compensation Commissioner dismissed the claim against the insurer and granted award against the appellant in view of the ruling of the Apex court in Ramashray Singh v. New India assurance Co. Ltd. , 2003 ACJ 1550 (SC), it is clear that no liability is fastened on the insurer with regard to the cleaner of a passenger bus under section 147 of the motor Vehicles Act. There is no contract in the policy to cover the risk of the cleaner by taking additional premium.

(3.) IT may be a fact that the deceased was employed as a cleaner in the passenger bus. The manner of accident narrated above discloses that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not travelling in the bus and he was hit while attending to the repairs. The bus ran over the deceased who was very much a pedestrian in the technical sense and would be a third party (apart from being employed as a cleaner), within the meaning of section 147 (1) (b)of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has taken a valid policy to cover the risk of pedestrians (third party), i. e. , the appellant is at liberty to work out the remedies against the insurer before the appropriate forum.