ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KADIAM YESTORAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, assailing the order, dated 20.04.1999, passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur (herein after referred to as the Commissioner) in W.C. Case No.7 of 1996. Respondents 1 and 2 submitted a claim before the Commissioner stating that late Yesupadam, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent, was working as a Cleaner on a Vehicle bearing No. AIW 4419, and on 08.09.1995, at about 11.00 p.m. when the vehicle was on the way to Piduguralla in Guntur district with a coal load, he fell down and died. They claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, as compensation. The 3rd respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, did not oppose the claim. The appellant herein filed a counter denying its liability. It disputed the existence of relationship of employer and employee between the respondents No.3 and the deceased. It was also pleaded that the conditions of the policy are violated, and thereby the liability cannot be fastened on it.

(2.) The 1st respondent was examined as AW.1, and she filed various documents, such as, the charge sheet, M.V.I. report and Postmortem certificate. On behalf of the appellant, RW.1 was examined. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as no fault liability. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the very claim is not maintainable, for the reason that there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the 3rd respondent, and the documents, such as, First Information Report, Charge Sheet, filed in relation to the same incident, disclose that the deceased was none other than the father of the driver of that vehicle. She submits that the concept of no fault liability cannot be imported to the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the W.C. Act), unless there exists the relationship of employer and employee. It is also contended that if for any reason, the appellant is required to meet the liability, it may be left open to it to recover the amount from the 3rd respondent by filing a E.P., and without any necessity to initiate fresh proceedings.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the employer, namely, the 3rd respondent, did not dispute the relationship, and in that view of the matter, the Commissioner ought to have awarded the amount claimed, by applying the provisions of the W.C. Act. He submits that whatever may have been the justification for the Commissioner in not allowing the claim in its entirety, no exception can be taken for awarding the no fault liability, under Section 140 read with Section 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the M.V. Act). The Commissioner doubted the existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the 3rd respondent. However, since the factum of death, involving the vehicle insured with the appellant, was not in dispute, he has chosen to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-, towards no fault liability under Section 140, read with Section 143 of the M.V. Act. A reading of the said provisions clearly indicates that the concept of payment of a fixed amount, in the event of death or bodily injury, in an accident, involved in a motor vehicle, is to be treated as part of the W.C. Act.