SHAIK MURTHUZA Vs. NADELLA KUTUMBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Claimants who are parents of the deceased filed this appeal aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2006 in W.C.M.P. No. 12 of 2005 in W.C. No. 18 of 2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of labour, Vijayawada, by which compensation of Rs. 3,35,600/- was awarded to the claimants against owner of the accident vehicle who is the insured and not against the insurer who is the 2nd Respondent herein. The Appellant's counsel contended that the Commissioner should have awarded compensation as against the insurer also and that the Commissioner should have awarded interest from the date of accident or at least from the date of making the claim before the Commissioner.

(2.) One G. Balayya was driving the accident vehicle viz., tipper bearing No. AP 16 U 9176 at the time of accident. The question whether the accident vehicle was having any national permit or not assumes little importance in this case because the accident took place at Vijayawada only within the State of Andhra Pradesh. There is also no dispute that the deceased was working as driver under the 1st Respondent/owner of the accident vehicle, though in fact he was not actually driving the accident vehicle at the time of accident. There is no dispute that the deceased was in employment and died during the course of employment under the 1st Respondent; and for that reason only the Commissioner awarded compensation to the dependants of the deceased as against the 1st Respondent. The policy/certificate of insurance reads that specific premium was paid covering risk of non-fare paying passenger and that pecific premium was paid covering risk of persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading, unloading of motor vehicle. According to the claimants, the deceased was spare driver travelling in the accident vehicle at the time of accident. It is contended by the Appellants' counsel that for each tipper, there will be two drivers and for some time one driver would drive the vehicle and after some time the 1st driver takes rest and the 2nd driver takes the steering for driving the vehicle and for that reason the deceased was in the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, presence of the deceased in the accident vehicle was neither unauthorised nor unwarranted. In any event, as pointed out earlier specific premia was paid not only for non-fare paying passenger and also persons employed in connection with operation, loading and unloading in the motor vehicle. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent/insurance company cannot avoid payment of compensation in this case by way of indemnifying the 1st Respondent/injured.

(3.) The Commissioner disallowed liability against the insurance company on the ground that six persons were travelling in the tipper as against permissible limit of three persons. It is not for the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act or for the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to find out whether there are any violations of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In case there are any violations like overloading of the vehicle etc., which overloading is punishable, it is for the appropriate authorities to take action against driver and owner of the vehicle as the case may be for such violations. It will not absolve the insurance company from paying compensation in respect of claims arising out of any accident of such vehicle resulting any injury to persons or death of persons. In case there are more claims than the number of persons covered by the policy, it is open to the insurance company to plead its non-liability to pay compensation in respect of more number of persons over and above the number of persons covered by the policy. In the present accident, there are no such number of claims over and above the number covered by the policy. Viewed from any angle, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to the claimants in this case.