NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mahaboobnagar, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rangareddy District, in WC Case No. 81 of 1989 dated 23.11.93 holding that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 37,041.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was mentioned both in the petition and in the evidence that the jeep bearing No. AHK 5180 was given for hire to the APCCAD Bank Limited, Mahaboobnagar by the opposite party No. 1 violating the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the said bank is liable to pay the compensation. To corroborate the said contention, the appellant has examined one T. Satyanarayana s/o T. Veeraiah, Legal Officer of the appellant company, Secunderabad, as RW 1. He deposed that the vehicle No. AHK 5180 belongs to M. Krishnaiah Goud s/o M. Sayanna, r/o Mahaboobnagar and insured with the appellant under policy No. 3161150100399 and valid from 4.4.1988 to 3.4.1989. He further deposed that the policy covers third party risks and that the owner of the vehicle-insured has hired the jeep to APCCAD Bank Limited, Mahaboobnagar and the opposite party No. 1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has held that the policy issued covering the vehicle involved in the accident was valid on the date of accident, yet it rejected the contention of the appellant that the insured-owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy as he has given the jeep on hire to APCCAD Bank Limited, Mahaboobnagar, on the ground that the insured, who is the employer of the claimant, remained ex parte and has not adduced any evidence. Therefore, it has observed that it is very difficult to believe that whether the jeep was hired on the date of accident, i.e., 17.11.1988 and held that the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the applicant not only in terms of insurance policy but also because of the power given to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Act to direct a person other than an employer to deposit the compensation. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that one of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy covering the vehicle involved in the accident, under the heading "Limitation as to the use", reads as follows:

(3.) Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I hold that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the opposite party No. 1 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is modified setting aside fastening of the liability on the appellant insurance company. However, it is mentioned that as per the directions of this court, the appellant has deposited 50 per cent of the compensation awarded and that the claimant has withdrawn the same. Therefore, the appellant is directed not to recover the same from the claimant. For the remaining amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to proceed against the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, as per the law.