BALASO NARASU CHAVARE Vs. SUDHAKAR V SAMBARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this Appeal is whether the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company can be absolved of payment of compensation under the Workmen' s compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") on the ground that the tractor and the trailer attached to it were being used to transport bricks. According to the Insurance Company, if the tractor and the trailer which they had insured was used for transportation of bricks they were not bound to pay any compensation as there was a breach of the terms of the insurance policy.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. The Appellants son Sunil was employed by Respondent No. 1 as a driver on the tractor which was insured by the Respondent No. 2 insurance Company. The deceased mat with an accident while driving the tractor. Since Respondent No. 1 did not pay any compensation under the Act, the Appellant filed a claim under the Act. The claim had been decided in favour of the Appellant on 22nd December 1998. However, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was of the view that the Insurance Company should be absolved of the liability of payment of compensation since there was a breach of the stipulations of the policy.

(3.) MR. INGALE, learned Advocate for the Appellants, submits that this obaervati6n of the Commissioner and the findings drawn by him that the Insurance Company should be absolved of the liability is without any basis. He submits that there is no dispute that the tractor was insured and that Respondent No. 1 was paying premium on the trailer attached to the tractor as well. He submits that in such a case it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner to absolve the Insurance company. He places reliance on the case of B. V. Nagaraju vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Divisional Officer, hassan, (1996) 4 SCC 647 and Nagashetty vs. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2001 8 SCC 56.