UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER Vs. SRIDHAR S/O C. MALLAPPA, M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmens' Compensation Act (for short the 'Act') by the insurer questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation (for short Commissioner), Bellary, in case No. WCA.CR.NF.67/98

(2.) THE facts leading to the presentation of this appeal in brief are as under, Respondent No. 2 herein by name Manjunath is the registered owner of maxicab bearing registration No. KA -35 -2261 which is a passenger carrying public service vehicle. Respondent No. 1 herein claims that he was employed by Respondent No. 2 as a cleaner in the said maxicab. That on 29.12.1997, the said maxicab met with an accident while carrying the passengers. At the time of accident, Respondent No. 1 herein was also proceeding in the said vehicle as cleaner. As a result of the accident, Respondent No. 1 and the passengers carried in the vehicle sustained injuries. In respect of the injuries sustained by him Respondent No. 1 filed claim petition before the Commissioner, Bellary under Section 3 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs from the owner and also the insurer of the said maxicab. The Appellant -insurer contested the said petition mainly on the ground that the policy issued by it in respect of the vehicle in question do not cover the risk of the cleaner. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured in respect of the claim made by the cleaner. The Commissioner after holding enquiry, by the order under appeal allowed the claim petition of Respondent No. 1 and awarded compensation of Rs. 26,894/ - together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident to the date of payment and directed the Appellant insurance company to pay the same. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the insurer has presented this appeal.

(3.) UPON service of notice of this appeal, Respondent No. 1 has appeared through his Counsel However, notice to Respondent No. 2 has been dispensed with as he had remained absent before the Commissioner.