UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LTD Vs. SIRE KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was claimed that applicant no.1's son and applicant's No.2's brother Gayad Singh was the driver of vehicle RJ 19 G 6800, as employed by non-applicant no.1. Because of blast in the said vehicle on 12.5.2001 the said driver died on 12.5.2001 itself. The applicant submitted claim petition before the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, impleading the employer and the insurer of the said vehicle in the claim petition. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed the award in favour of the claimants on 29.12.1984. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount including the interest and penalty amount awarded in the award.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant,in view of the various judgments, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay penalty amount because of the simple reason that the penalty amount is not the statutory liability nor insurer accepted to cover said liability. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this view has been taken by this Court in various earlier decisions as well as in the decisions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that even as per Condition IMT-17, the Insurance Company can be held liable to indemnify the insured for all legal liabilities and not the liability which is result of default of insured.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents claimants vehemently submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in its recent judgment delivered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Roop Kanwar & ors. ( 2006(2) RDD 726(Raj.)(DB), clearly held that since the insurer had charged additional premium to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Insurance Company cannot deny the liability to reimburse the penalty amount.