UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ROOP KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 16-02-1985 by which he has awarded Rs. 25,200/- as compensation and Rs. 12,600/- as penalty with interest @ 6% p.a. from 23-03-1981. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) BHAGWAN Singh, husband of Roop Kanwar (respondent No. 1) and father of Sarwan Singh (respondent No. 2) and Smt. Keshaw Kanwar (respond-ent No. 3.), was a cleaner in the truck No. RSN 5900, owned by Hari Singh (respondent No. 4). On March 23, 1981, its driver Tulchha Ram took it to the work-shop of Kasim Khan, P.W. 3 for certain repairs. When it was being put in the garage of the said work-shop, its stone-patties fell down over BHAGWAN Singh. As a result thereof, he received serious injuries, he was immediately taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and he remained there for about four months for his treatment. On 8-7-1981, he filed a claim petition under Rule 20, Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur for the recovery of Rs. 23,520/- as compensation with cost, interest and penalty against Hari Singh (owner of the truck) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jodhpur (Insurer of the truck).

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that it has not been averred in the written-statements that the place where the accident took place was not a public place and as such the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that the place where the accident took place was a private place. He relied upon United INdia INsurance Co. vs. Gangadharan (6). He also contended that the garage of Kasim Khan was a public place as defined in section 2(24), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as the public had and have a right of access in it. He relied upon Pandurang vs. New INdia INsurance Co. (7). He further contended that it is clear from the Cover-Note Ex. A-10, Certificate of INsurance Ex.A-12 and INsurance Policy Ex.A-19 that they also included the liability of the cleaner and it is clear from the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 that an INsurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. He relied upon Oriental Fire & General INsurance Co vs. Nani Bala Devi (8), Oriental Fire & General INsurance Co. vs. Presiding Officer (9) Oriental INsurance Co. vs. Jeva Ramma (10) and National INsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Narayan Nair (11). He lastly contended that the INsurance Company is also liable to pay the penalty and interest as it was promptly informed of the accident by the insured.