NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal, at the instance of the New India Assurance Company Limited, has been preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional Sub-Court), Tiruchirapalli in M. C. O. P. No. 267 of 1983. The 6th respondent herein owned a tractor PTL 8009 and a trailer PL 8063 and they had been insured with the appellant. On June 4, 1983, one Kaliamurthy, husband of the 1st respondent and father of Respondents 2 to 5, who was employed as a loadman, was proceeding in the trailer, to go to the fields to lift a load of sugars and at that time, an accident took place resulting in Kaliamurthy falling down and the trailer running over and killing him instantaneously. The case of respondents 1 to 5 was that Kaliamurthy lost his life owing to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and the trailer belonging to the 6th respondent by its driver and in respect of that, compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000 should be awarded to them. This claim was repudiated by the 6th respondent on the ground that the driver of the tractor drove it cautiously and carefully and that deceased Kaliamurthy was employed only as a cleaner and the liability to pay compensation in respect of the death of Kaliamurthy would be that of the appellant. The amount of compensation claimed was also characterised to be excessive. The appellant repudiated the claim of the respondents 1to 5 contending that the 6th respondent was liable to pay compensation, as under the terms of the policy, the Insurance company was not liable to pay compensation in respect of passengers carried in the tractor. Further, the appellant also disputed its liability to pay the compensation, as claimed by respondents 1 to 5.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, EX. A-1 was marked and the 1st respondent and another were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 while, on behalf of the appellant and the 6th respondent Exs. B-1 to B-11 filed and the 6th respondent and another gave evidence as R. Ws. 1 and 2. On a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident resulting in the death of Kaliamurthy took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and the trailer by the driver of the 6th respondent and that the deceased was employed under the 6th respondent as a loadman and not as cleaner. Considering the terms of the policy, Ex. B-1 (same as Ex. B-11), the Tribunal found that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 5 in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lakshmi and others (13. 02. 1991 -MADHC) Page 3 of 9 (13. 02. 1991 -MADHC) Page 3 of 9 Compensation Act and for computing the compensation payable, the Tribunal took into account the age of the deceased as 35 at the time of the accident and applying Section 4 and Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended by Act 22 of 1984, determined the compensation awardable to respondents 1 to 5 in a sum of Rs. 23,647. 20 and directed the appellant to pay that amount. It is the correctness of the award so passed that is questioned in this appeal.

(3.) THE only contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant was that the right of respondents 1 to 5 to claim compensation in respect of the death of Kaliamurthy arose on the day on which the accident took place, viz. , June 4, 1983 and the quantum of compensation awardable to respondents 1 to 5 under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) got fixed and determined on the basis of Section 4 and Schedule IV as they then stood and the Tribunal was in error in having applied Section 4 and Schedule IV of the Act, as amended by Act 22 of 1984, which was operative from July 1, 1984 to quantify the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 5, in respect of an accident that took place on June 4, 1983. Reliance in this connection was placed by learned counsel for appellant upon the decisions in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited v. Bidi 1972 ACJ 187, Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 - I - LLJ -235, Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Company Limited 1982 ACJ 191, Kochu Velu v. Purakkattu Joseph 1984 ACJ 630, General Manager, Western Railway v. Lala Nanda 1985 ACJ 57, Moti Lal v. Thakur das 1985 ACJ 634 U. P. State Transport Corporation v. Abdul Hameed 1985 ACJ 832 and Singareni Collieries v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1988 ACJ 940. Based on the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the liability of the appellant would only be Rs. 18,000 and nothing more. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 contended that the provisions of the Act are intended for the benefit and welfare of the workmen injured in the course of employment and its provisions ought to receive an interpretation beneficial to the workmen, and, therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation cannot be taken exception to. It was also further contended that at the time when the Tribunal passed the award, amended Section 4 and Schedule IV to the Act had come into force and that had been given effect to by the Tribunal and therefore, no infirmity attached to the quantification of the compensation.