ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by the insurance company challenging the award of compensation to the widow of one Radhelal, who died during the course of employment of Respondent No. 2, first raises the question whether the insurance company could at all be made a party to these proceedings and the liability fastened. It was not denied that Radhelal died while working as driver of the Respondent No. 2 on a truck owned by him. It is also not denied that his pay was Rs. 1,000/- per month and he was aged 40 years at the time of his death. According to Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the compensation amount works out to Rs. 73,688/ -. This also has not been denied. In the claim petition by the widow of Radhelal, the insurance company was made a party. The insurance company filed a written statement and admitted the fact of insurance. However, it contested the liability and questioned its being made a party to the proceedings. The impugned award has been passed against the employer, viz. , Respondent No. 1, Santosh Kumar Agarwal and the insurance company jointly. The award also says that in case of failure to pay the entire amount of Rs. 73,688/-, owner and the insurance company shall have to pay a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ -. The owner has not appealed but the insurance company has.

(2.) MR. S. K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, first raised the question as to the legality of appellant being joined as a party to these proceedings. The contention has been that the insurance company cannot be said to be an 'employer' within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and since under Section 3 it is the employer who is alone liable for compensation, the insurance company could not be made liable. This question has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court as early as in 1973 in Northern India Insurance Company v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, 1973 ACJ 428 (MP ). It has been held that insurance company in such matter is a proper party to the proceedings. That was also a case for compensation for injuries sustained by a workman in a truck accident where the truck was insured with the insurance company. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. We could not be persuaded to take a different view. We, therefore, hold following the view taken by the Division Bench that the insurance company is a proper party to these proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then questioned the liability and submitted that the appellant company could not be made liable for any amount exceeding Rs. 50,000 which is the limit of its liability as per the policy. This contention also cannot be accepted. The statutory liability of the insurance company in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver) is Rs. 1,50,000/- in terms of Section 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Mr. Rao, however, submitted that the policy was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and it indicates a contract between the owner and the insurance company, limiting the company's liability under Schedule II (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event to Rs. 50,000/ -. The question whether the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle could so contract out of the statutory liability, we find that no such question has been raised before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and, therefore, the plea has rightly not been entertained. We, therefore, also do not entertain this plea. This contention is, therefore, rejected.