Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Vemireddy Thirupal Reddy

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CMA/3/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against Workmen's Compensation awards following deaths of labourers. The Income-tax Tribunal held insurer liable. This court ruled compensation payable from deposited funds, with insurers to recover from vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed in part; insurers to recover paid compensation from vehicle owner; claimants may proceed against owner for balance.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

C.M.A.NO.504 OF 2009

¶3

AND C.M.A.NO.3 OF 2012

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶5

Both appeals arise out of a common accident and a claim for compensation before the Workmen’s Compensation Tribunal in W.C.No.99 of 2004 and W.C.100 of 2004. W.C.No.99 of 2004 refers to the death of the deceased-Anjaneyulu Reddy; whereas W.C.No.100 of 2004 refers to the death of the deceased-Srinivasa Reddy. They are said to be unmarried children of the original claimants 1 and 2. According to the claimants, on 13-02-2003 the deceased persons were employed as a labourers for loading and unloading of the sand in the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP 27 G 3655 and 3656 belonging to the opposite party No.1 and when they were collecting mud for loading in the Tractor and Trailer, the heap has fallen on them and, therefore, they died. The deceased persons were aged about 25 years and a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs was claimed in each O.P.

¶6

Originally ex parte orders were passed in both the O.Ps on 13.10.2004 and subsequently ex parte orders were set aside and respondent No.3 who is the appellant herein has filed a counter putting the claimants to the proof of the cause of death of the deceased persons in the course of the employment and also claiming that the risk is not covered. They also disputed about the quantum of compensation. Further more, there is violation of the conditions of the policy as it was used for non-agricultural purpose.

¶7

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.2,24,038/- in each of the cases and directed the appellant herein to pay the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the said awards, the present appeals are filed.

¶8

Now the point that arises for consideration is:-

¶9

Whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation and the award passed by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? POINT:-

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the liability

¶11

of the appellant is excluded on three grounds. According to him, there is no proof that the cause of death was in the course of employment; secondly that the policy does not cover the risk of the coolies or the labourers; and thirdly there is violation of the conditions of the policy whereunder the Tractor and Trailer shall be used for agricultural purpose, whereas they were being used for transport of the mud or the sand and consequently the appellant is not liable to pay the same.

¶12

So far as the cause of death of the deceased and the quantum of compensation are concerned, there is no dispute. The opposite party No.1 has also admitted the employment of the deceased persons and there is no contrary evidence adduced by the appellant to show that they were not employed by opposite party No.1. The question is even if the deceased persons are to be taken as employed, whether their death can be attributed to a cause in the course of their employment. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the vehicle was not moving and as the vehicle was not involved in causing the death of the deceased persons, there is no liability. But this contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the employment of the deceased persons was to get the mud into the Tractor and Trailer and for that purpose only they were engaged and the principle of Notional Extension of the Employment squarely applies to the facts of this case and consequently it cannot be said that the cause of death was not during the course of employment.

¶13

So far as the liability under the policy is concerned, in fact Ex.A-4 and B-3 were marked. The policy which was issued is a Farmers Package Policy. It has got three risks covered. One is to the property; another is to the personal risk to the owner and also third party risk. As can be seen from the policy, there is no collection of the extra premium from the owner of the vehicle to cover the labourers. Since the petitioners themselves claim that the deceased were employees on the Tractor they also do not come as third parties to the claim. Evidently, when once the policy does not cover the risk of the labourers, there cannot be any liability on the part of the Insurance Company. However, the learned

¶14

counsel for the respondent contends that originally ex parte orders were passed holding that the policy covers the risk of the coolies and, therefore, the appellant cannot contend to the contra. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the nature of the order itself was ex parte and no opportunity was given to the appellant to prove the nature of the policy. Therefore, the compensation has to be necessarily made on the basis of Ex.A-4 corresponding to Ex.B-3. When once the risk of the labourers is not covered, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the payment of the compensation. So far as the other violations of conditions of the policy are concerned, in fact, according to the claimants, the transport of the mud is said to be for agricultural purpose and there is nothing contrary to prove the same and, therefore, the violation of the purpose of use of vehicle cannot be inferred.

¶15

Therefore, the appellant has to succeed as there was no coverage of the risk of the labourers under the policy. However, it is represented by learned counsel for the appellant that the total amount has been deposited and half of the amount has already been withdrawn by the claimants and half of the amount is lying before the Commissioner. Therefore, for the amount which has already been withdrawn, the Insurance Company can proceed to recover from the owner of the same. So far as balance amount of compensation is concerned, the claimants are at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part.

¶17

__________________

¶18

N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J

¶19

16-02-2012 TSNR

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Vemireddy Thirupal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Vemireddy Thirupal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. ( a Company incorporated Vs Neelakanteshwar Reddy K.

M.Appa Rao Vs Dukka Srinivasa Rao

M/s Tci Finance Ltd., Vs M/s Shanti Public School

Balkishan Vs K. Anjaneyulu

chanumolu Narsimha Rao Vs Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada-cum-Competent Authority

M/s. Gowra Leasing and finance Ltd., Vs Mrs. Kanchan Tandon, Major Direcot