Telangana High Court
CMA/800/2005 of THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SHAIK NOORJAHAN BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 800 OF 2005 (Appeal filed Under Seclion 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, aggrieved by the order
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI [DEVI]
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 800 OF [2005]
(Appeal filed Under Seclion 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, aggrieved by the order [dated]30.01.2001 [passed ]in W.C.Case No.150 of [2003(F),on the ][file of ][the Commissioner ][for ][Workmen's]Compensation and Assistant Commissioner [of ][Labour at Nalgonda)]30.01.2001 [passed ]in W.C.Case No.150 of [2003(F),on the ][file of ][the Commissioner ][for ][Workmen's]Compensation and Assistant Commissioner [of ][Labour at Nalgonda)]
Between:
The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office-ll, [Anasurya ][Complex,]3-6-10, H imayathnagar, P. B. No.1051 , Hyderabad, [rep ][by ][its Divisional ][Manager.]
..,APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
AND
1. Shaik Noorjahan Begum, W/o. Late China Moulana, Age:30 [years Occ: ][Household]
2. Shaik Shaheena, D/o. Late China Moulana, [Age:12 ][years]
3. Shaik Arif, S/o. Late China N.4oulana [Age:s ][years]
4. Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late China Moulana, Age:3 [years]
5. Shaik Wali Saheb, S/o. Lal Saheb Age:60 [years]
6. Shaik Mastan Bee, Wio. Wali Saheb [Age:55 years, Occ:Household.]
All areR/o. Yerrupalem Village & hilandal, Khammam District.
Respondents No.2 to 5 are Minors [represented ][by ][their Mother ][Respondent:1.]
7. B. Venkateshwarlu, s/o. Pedda Beeraiah. Ownerof ..^"::::::r:::;::T:]:
5421 P'/o. Konijerla [(V), ]Khammam [M ][& ][D.]
...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.1
MAMP. NO: 15076 OF00
Petition under Section 151 CPC, [praying ]that in the circumstances stated in [the]affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased grant ]interim stay ofwithdrawal of the deposited amount of RS. 2,09,660/- to the credit of W.C. Case.No.150 [of]2003 [F], on the file of CWC & ACL, Nalgonda by the [R-'1 ][.]
CMAMP. NO: 1438 OF 2000
Between:
l.Shaik Noorjahan Begum, W/o. Late China Moulana, Age:30 [years ]Occ: Household
2.Shaik Shaheena, D/o. Late China Moulana, Age:'l2years
3.Shaik Arif, S/o. Late China lvloulana Age: 5 [years]
4.Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late China Moulana, [Age:3 years]
5.Shaik Wali Saheb, S/o. Lal Saheb [Age:60 ][years]
All are Fl,/o. Yerrupalem Village & Mandal, Khammam District, Respondents No.2 to 5 i re Minors represented by their Mother Respondent:1
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
AND
1. The New lndia Assuranc€ Co. Ltd, Divisional Office-ll, Anasurya Complex3-6-10, Himayathnagar, P B.No.1051,Hyderabad,rep by its Divisionat Manager3-6-10, Himayathnagar, P B.No.1051,Hyderabad,rep by its Divisionat Manager ,,,,RESPONOENT/PETITIONER
z. Shaik Musran Bee,w/o Wi li Saheb(died)
3. B. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. F:dda Beeraiah, Occ: Owner of Eicher Tractor bearingNo. AP 36 T 5421, Wo. Kr nijerla (V), Khammam t\,4 & D.No. AP 36 T 5421, Wo. Kr nijerla (V), Khammam t\,4 & D.
(Respondent No,3 ls not necesr ary party in this petition)
Petition under section 151 cPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the counteraffidavit filed in support of he petition, the High court may be pteased to vacate the interimstay granted on 13.10.200/, in cMP No.15076 of 2004, in cMA.No.800 of 2005.
Counsel for the Appellant SRl. T RAMULU
Counsel for Respondent i rCMA Nos. 'l to 6: SRI V. RAGHU
counsel for Respondent t o.7 : sRt M. v. DURGA PRASAD
The Court made the follov ing JUDGMENT:
.tHE HONOUITAI}I-E [SMT][ JUSTIC-E ][P. ][MADHAVI ][DEVI]
().u000F2[005]
SCI:[I-I,][A\][EO][[]s][ APP][ T,A][LN]}II
CIV[II-]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This [Civil ][Miscellaneous Appeal ][is ][file<i ][by ][the ][New ][lndia]Assurance [ComPanY][ Limited ][against ][the ][award ][passed ][by ][the]and [Assistant]Commissioner [for ][Workmen's ][Compensatton]2003Commissioner [of ][l-abour' ][Nalgonda][ in ][W.C.No ][150 ][of]dt.30.04.2004'
2. Brief [facts leading ro the ][filing ][of ][this Appeai ][are ][that ][one ][sri]Shaik [Moulana worked ][as ][labourer ][on ][the ][tractor ][bearing ][No'AP ][367]5421' [On ][2O'12'2OO2at ][about ][4'00 ][AM' ][when ][he was ][retuming ][from]Kodad [to ][Janare<ldynagar ][in ][the tractor after completion ][of ][repairs ][of]the [tractol', ][therc ][was an accident ][and ][the labourer ][died on the ][spot']The [dependents ][of ][the ][deceased ][filed ][claim ][petition ][before ][the]Commissioner [fot' ][Workmen's ][Compensation stating that the ][deceased]was 32 [years ][old ][and ][was ][in ][receipt ][of ][Rs'3'000/- per month ][towards]wages. [The ][Opposite Parly No'2-insurance company ][had ][contended]before [the Commissioner that the ][accident had occurred at ][4'00 ][A'M']on 20 '122002and [there ][was ][no neetl ][for ][the labourer ][to ][be ][there ][on]the [tractor' ]['l'hc ][Commissioncr ][htlwcver ][did ][not ][agree ][with ][this]contention [of ][Opposite ][Party ][No ][2 ][and ][held that ][there ][was no ][rule ][that]the [vehicles ][could not ][bc ][plied ][in thc ][r.rights ][or ][that ][the ][labourers ][need]
not be with thr vehicles in the [night. ][He ][also ][obsen ][ed that ][the]deceased accon panied the tractor to help [the ][driver ][in ][getting it]repaired. As reg rrds the second objection [of ][thc Opposite Partv ][No.2]that the labout't rs are not covered under [the ][policy ][ar-ril ][hence ][the]lnsllrancc coln lanv ts [l1o1]responsible li;r the l)a)'ment [o1-]compensatiou. t Ie Comrnissioner observed that the policl [shorvs that]thc premiun'r of Rs.5 I 0/- was collectecl lbr the tlrilol ancl [tlre ][policy]does not specr S any condition ol non-coverage ol crnployees,engaged on the tractol'. I{e thus rejected the secortd ob-iection also ofthe Opposite Pa 1y No.2 and accordingly he awarded a contpcnsationofRs.2,09,660/- for the death of'the deceased in the accident
3. The insu ance company has llled this Appeal stating that theinsurance polic' of Opposite Party No.l does not covel the risk ol'thelabourer as no additional premium was paid lbr covcrage of thelabourer. ['l'he ]rppellant places reliance upon the decision of theHon'ble Suprer re Court in the case of National Insurance OompanyLimited Vs. . ugal Kishore and othersr anrl also thc casc ofRamashrya Sirrgh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited2.
4. l,earned counsel for the appellant insurance corlpany, Sri PRarnulu, also p aced reliance upon the decision ol the Iligh Court tbrthe State of Te ansana and tl-re State of Andhra Pradesh rn the case o1'New lndia As rurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its l)i! isional Nlanager, ' [r98s ]1t I [ec.t ][zzo]' [zoo3 ]1:y [ec: ][I ][550 ][(2003) ro ][scc ][664]' [zoo3 ]1:y [ec: ][I ][550 ][(2003) ro ][scc ][664]
Kurnool Vs. Kurva Nagamma and otherss, wherein afterconsidering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofRamashrya Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2supra), the High Court has held that while Motor Vehicles Actprotects the interests of the driver of every motor vehicle, theConductor or Ticket Exarniner of a public service vehicle and anemployee of a goods carriage vehicle, no such protection is availableto any other category of employees or persons unless their risk iscovered by payment of premium. In the said case, the Hon,ble HighCourt also considered that the policy required payment of Rs.15/- forcovering the risk ol' each person other than the driver and cleaner.Since no such premium was paid, it was held that the policy did notcover the labourers. Sirnilar decision was also given in the case ofDivisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.,Nizamabad Vs. Zahecr Ahmed and othcrsa, wherein it was heldthat where insurance policy shows that the owner of the lorry paidpremium only for.two persons, i.e., for driver and cleaner being thetwo employees covered by the policy under the provisions of Section147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the injured claimants i.e., labourersare not covered by the policy. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside ofthe award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
.\
r zo 151r,1 elr 6or' [zo ][rs ]12; [nLT ][r-sa]zo 151r,1 elr 6or' [zo ][rs ]12; [nLT ][r-sa]
5. Learned c )unsel for the claimants, Sri [M.V. ][I)urga ][Prasad, ][on]the other hand, L as frled a copy of thc insurance [policy to ][suggest ][that]the premiunr wa; paid tbr the trailor u'hich also covers [the ][labotlrers]who were on th( trailor. l le also placed reliance Lrpon [the decision ][ol]this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. [Ltd., ][Kaclapa ][Vs.]Pujzrla Chench r Nagaiah and otherss, wherein rt [was ]held that [the]contention of tl e appellant insurance company that it is not underobligation to co er liability arising out ofdeath or boclily initrlies to [a]cleaner, unless e rtra premium is paid, cannot be accepted.
6. Having re gard to the rival contentions, this Court flnds that thedecision o1'this loun in the case of New lndia Assurance [(b. ]Ltd.,Kaclapa Vs. l'] ujala Chenchu Nagaiah ancl others [( ]5 supra)ISdistinguishable ;n I'acts as in that case the deceasecl was a clcaner ol'the vehicle. \^'h( reas in the case on harrd. the deceasc'd uas a labourerand his case i; clearly covered by thc clecision ol' the on'bleSupreme Cour in the casc ol \ational Insurancc [(ornpanl']Linrited Vs. J rgal Kishorc and others [( ]I surpra) as well as thedecision o1'this Court in the casc of New lndia Assurancc [(lo. ]Ltd..Kadapa \'-s. 'ujala Chenchu Nagaiah zrnd others (5 supra).Admittedly. in this oase, thc policy did not include the risk of thelabourer and th: owner had not paid any extra prer-r-riurn to cover thepersons other tt an the driver and the cleaner. ln sr"rch cases. tlie owner ' [ztt ][r ][r ]1r1 [alo ][slo]
' [ztt ][r ][r ]1r1 [alo ][slo]
of thc vchiclc shall be responsible lor the injury caused to the thirdparty. However. the insurance companv would have to make thepayment of compcnsation to the claimants under the Workrnen'sCompensatiorr and therealier recover tl'om the owner ol the vehicle,who has breacl.red the oonditions of the policy, as held by this Courtin the case o1'New lndi:r Assurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Vs. PujalaChenchu Nagaiah and others (5 supra). ['l'herefore, ]the Appeal olthe insurance company as against respondents I to 6 is dismissed. Asagainst respondent No.7 is concerned, from the copy of the insurancepolicy, the trailor is insured asa non-agricultural vehicle andtherefore, there is no violation of any of the terms and conditions ofthe policy. Therelorc, the appeal againsl respondent No.7 is [also]dismissed.
'l'he 1. Civil Miscellancous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Noordcr as t0 c()sts.
tt, Pending misccilaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA [shall ][also]stand dismisscd SD/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,The Comissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour:at Nalgonda (with records)2.One CC to SRl. T. RA[/ULU, Advocate [OPUC]3.One CC to SRl. V. RAGHU, Advocate IOPUCI4.One CC to SRl. M.V. DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]5.Two CD Copies6.One Spare CopyPCSDR
HIGH COURT
DATED:.3111212021
JUDGMENTCMA.No.800 of 2005
Dismissing the CN{,\NO COS'I'S
a1r41,(&
0 7 [ri]