NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. JANKI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh -cum -Commissioner in W.C. Case No. 07/2006, whereby the appellant -National Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,25,365 to Respondent No. 1 with interest @ 6% from the date of institution till recovery and if the amount was not paid within two months from the date of award the appellant -Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable for paying penal interest @ 12% from the date of order/award till the date of payment. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased, Satyendra Kumar Gupta was employed as a mechanic with M/s. Maa Chhinamastika Automobiles. That in course of duty, on instruction of the employer, the deceased was going to Ramgarh and was riding Bajaj motorcycle bearing No. JH -02D -7779 belonging to the employer. That the motorcycle was hit by a trekker due to which he sustained injuries resulting in his death.

(2.) The learned Trial Court had framed three points for determination, thereafter on the basis of material evidence available on record it held that the deceased was an employee of Sri Rajesh Kumar, owner and proprietor of M/s. Maa Chhinamastica Automobile/O.P. No. 1 and he died in course of employment. That the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant -Insurance Company, as such the owner was liable to pay the compensation but since the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company was the insurer thus in terms of the insurance policy he was liable to indemnify the owner, accordingly, the appellant -Insurance Company was directed to pay the said compensation.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned order was passed solely on the basis of the insurance policy i.e. Ext. -3, which was produced in the Court below. It is submitted that in terms of the insurance policy the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner only for the purposes of damages to the motorcycle to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) and there is no liability to pay the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, upon the Insurance Company. In support of his contention he has also referred to the provisions of Ss. 146 and 147 of the M.V. Act. It is argued that had the claimants filed the claim under Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company could have been held liable but in the instant case there is no material on record to fix and fasten liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the deceased was not engaged as a driver rather he was sent by the employer on the motorcycle to fetch the keys from Ramgarh and in such circumstances the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount.