NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. NIMMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under S.30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. A workman employed by the fifth respondent while riding a scooter, owned by the fifth respondent, died in an accident during the course of employment. It has come out in evidence that when the accident arose he was discharging his duties. The appellant insurance company was the insurer of the scooter. The contention raised by the insurance company is that in the absence of workmen compensation policy, the liability on the insurance company under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be fastened only under first proviso to S.147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. First Proviso to S.147 (1) reads as follows:

(2.) According to the insurance company, to come within the above provision an employee should be employed as a permanent driver by the owner of the vehicle. In this case, deceased was employed by the fifth respondent and as part of his duty he was riding the scooter. It is not stated in the section that to get protection under this section one should be permanently employed as driver or the sole duty entrusted on him is driving. We are of the opinion that when an employee in driving the vehicle as part of his duty he will come within the first proviso to S.147(1) of the M.V.Act. Here the victim was an employee of the owner of the vehicle which was insured by the appellant. He was driving the vehicle as part of his duty. Hence first proviso to S.147(1) is attracted. Words used in clause (a) is 'engaged in driving the vehicle' and not engaged as a permanent driver as contended by the insurance company. Therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

(3.) In this case, were note that deceased was aged only 39 and he left behind his wife and three minor children and the total amount of compensation awarded is only Rs.1,86,900/- . The compensation amount was calculated correctly as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned award as there is no substantial question of law.