MOHAMMAD ASIF Vs. HAZI MOHAMMAD NAYEEM KOTWALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "W.C. Act") has been filed on behalf of the appellant, whereby his application under Section 10 of W.C. Act has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case and pleadings of p]ies are narrated in para 2 and 3 of the order passed by the Commissioner under W.C. Act, hence the same need not be reiterated here since the only question which has arisen in this appeal is whether respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant despite the accident has not occurred of the vehicle i.e. Jeep No.MP20HA-0292 which was insured by the Insurer/respondent no.2. Learned Commissioner on the basis of evidence came to hold that the appellant was serving as Driver of first respondent upon Jeep No.MP20-HA-0292. On the direction given by his employer, the appellant on 09.04.2001 was driving the aforesaid Jeep and when he was coming back from Patan to Jabalpur nearby village Tevar on account of some mechanical breakdown, the Jeep became disordered as a result of which the appellant, to bring a mechanic from Jabalpur, boarded a bus No.MIK-7177 which was going to Jabalpur. The said bus met with an accident with a truck as a result of which the appellant sustained bony injuries on his left leg, shoulder and back bone. Since according to the appellant the incident had arisen out of and during the course of employment and further because vehicle Jeep No.MP20HA- 0292 was insured by the Insurer including the risk of the driver, therefore, respondents no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(3.) ON other hand Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for Insurer/respondent no.2 argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that even if it is held by this Court that the appellant met with an accident during the course of employment since the impugned accident has nothing to do with insured Jeep, therefore, Insurer cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 2019.