NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOMIN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Joydeep Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at length. None appears on the side of the respondents without showing any cause and as such hearing has been proceeded in the absence of the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.8.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 30(A) of 1999 by the Commissioners for Workmen's Compensation, Manipur by which the present appellant (O.P. No. 2 in the claim case) was directed to deposit on or before 10.10.2000 a sum of Rs. 2,116,910/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixteen thousand Nine Hundred and Ten) with simple interest @ Rs. 12 per annum from the date of accident puportedly for payment to the present respondent Nos-1 and 2, who were claimant Nos-1 and 2 in the claim case. The pesent respondent Nos-1 and 2 filed the said claim case alleging that Md. Sanatomba, who was a workmen employed by the O.P. No. 1 in the case (the present respondent No. 3) in the capacity of Clearner in respect of the latter's Tata Truck bearing Registration No. MN-01/3825, died along with three others occupants of the said truck in an accident involving the said truck on 16.9.99 at 7 p.m. at Lilong Litanmakhong and that being widow and father of the deceased Sanatomba they were entitled to compensation. The present appellant (the O.P. No. 2 in the case) contested the case by filing its written statement. One of the points pleaded by the present appellant in the said written statement was to the effect that under the terms of the Insurance Company of the said truck the insurance policy was not liable to indemnify the owner of the truck in the nature and character of the case. One of the relevant issues firamed in connection with the said pleading was Issue No. 5-" whether the opposite party No. 2 is liable to indemnify the opposite party No. 1 the liability to pay compensation as is due ?"

(3.) On the basis of the materials, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Manipur decided the said issue against the opposite party No. 2. According to the learned Commissioner, the insurance policy issued by the opposite party No. 2 under the M.V. Act, 1988 should satisfy all the requirements of the Chapter XI of the M.V. Act, 1988 including the compensation payable under the said Act in respect of the deaths of employees of the opposite party No. 1 employed in the said vehicle. Further, according to the learned Commissioner, Section 147(I)(a) and Section 147(I)(b)(i) of the M.V. Act provide for the liability to be covered by an insurance policy. Furthermore, the learned Commissioner held to the effect that the premium of Rs. 30 paid by the owner/employer was to indemnify his liability in respect of deaths or bodily injuries of all employees engaged in the truck and as such the Insurance Company (the present appellant) was liable to indemnify the opposite party No. 1 (the present respondent No. 3) in respect of the compensation liable to be paid in connection with the death of the said Md. Sanatomba. There is no dispute in respect of other issues in the case.