UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PUSHPATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife, minor daughters and parents, have filed W.C. No. 264 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (DCL) Salem, claiming compensation, for the death of their breadwinner, Palaniswami, who was engaged as a driver, under Mr. N.M. Thangaraj, the 1st opposite party in the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle, 1st opposite party remained ex parte. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharapuram, insurer of the Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. TN 33 AU 0171, has opposed the claim petition contending inter alia that at the time of accident, deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. As regards the employer-employee relationship, they have put the claimants to proof. Before the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (DCL), Salem, wife of the deceased examined herself as AW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. Ex. P1, FIR, Ex. P2, Observation Mahazar, Ex. P3, Rough sketch, Ex. P4, Case history, Ex. P5, Final Report, Ex. P7, Post-mortem certificate, Ex. P8, Legal Heir certificate, Ex. P9, Driving licence, Ex. P10, Insurance Policy, Ex. P11, Registration certificate, Ex. P12, Lawyer's notice, Exs. P13 and P14, Postal Acknowledgement cards, have been marked. RW1, is the Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company. R1, policy, has been marked on the side of the appellant Insurance company.

(2.) While adverting to the case of the insurance company for exoneration of its liability, to pay compensation to the claimants on the grounds that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a badge, the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (DCL), Salem, taking note of the decision of this Court in Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Venkatan and another, 2009 ACJ 2855, held that the objections, were not tenable. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract the decision considered by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (DCL), Salem.

(3.) RW1, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company has categorically admitted that Ex. P10, policy, covered five employees and that premium has also been paid. In addition to the above, as per 1st proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee, (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability.