ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KISHORBHAI POPATBHAI PARSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the communication/order dated 12-2-1999 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot to the Divisional Manager of the petitioner-Company calling upon the Company to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act) with interest and penalty to the heirs of deceased-Kishorbhai Popatbhai who was the driver of the motor vehicle involved in a motor accident on 7-3-1994.

(2.) The heirs of the deceased had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1589 of 1998 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot claiming a sum against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajkot. of Rs. 3 lacs under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal found that since the accident arose on account of negligence of the deceased-driver himself, the application filed by his heirs for compensation could not be tried by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but the heirs were entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased was driving the motor vehicle in question belonging to respondent No. 6 herein-Parsottambhai Mavjibhai Siyani of M/s. Shreeji Foundry in the course of his employment. The deceased was employed as a driver and was holding a valid driving licence. The vehicle was also insured and the insurance policy disclosed that the petitioner-Company had taken premium for insuring the driver's risk also and, therefore, the petitioner-Company was liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the impugned communication/order, after referring to the above facts, the Tribunal mentioned that merely because the heirs of the deceased-driver had by misunderstanding or mistake filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal instead of filing the same before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the applicants were not disentitled to get the compensation. The Tribunal further observed that under the amended provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer and the Insurance Company ought to have deposited the compensation with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation without any application having been filed and since that was not done, the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest and penalty. Hence, if the Insurance Company did not deposit the amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Tribunal within one month, the Tribunal would take appropriate action against the officer responsible for disobedience and that the order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The petitioner-Insurance Company has filed the present revision application to challenge the aforesaid communication/order of the Tribunal.

(3.) In the order dated 4-3-1999 while issuing notice on this revision application for final disposal, this Court clearly mentioned the order which the Court proposed to pass subject to hearing the parties to the present proceedings. It was also made clear in the order that if the respondents herein were agreeable to the proposed order being passed, they may not remain present before this Court. The notice was sent in Gujarati as directed by this Court earlier. The respondents are served accordingly.