••»y (373IH3A JO ySMMO) (•9'3) V8HOX - IDIUlSia V 'HVl 'VaUO^ 'tIVOVM JV1VHJ VMVUVHVM '89T 's'M'a so iNaaisa^ 'IVMVU IHQINVAVa 0/S IVMV^ VUaNafVH 373IH3A JO yaAiva ('9'3) vauo5i - iDiuisia 'VHOHOIVX -'HVI 'vaNHMsnx - VMVHI 'unLjMvuva a^v^^IA O/H ^aivj -aisv3 'T[aivd avsvHJAiHS 0/8 'SUA 8Z 39V HVMAX HSSHIIS 'L ^•9 K.s < -; siMVDnjjv-NON/siMaaNOJsara (•9*3) V8UOM - 13IH18ia 'vuoHOivx - 'HVI 'vaNri^sn^ VNEVH1 'Unj^VUVa 3^V^^IA AO ANaaisau ^^v 'AVSMOS IHHS 0/M 'SHA 09 39V UVMNA5I1IHS 'LWS 'AVaVA WVHIUHS 0/S 'SHA 09 39V AVSNOS AVaVA QMIAOO 31V^ 0/M 'SUA ZZ aov ivavuaaM NviaHvao HonoHHi UOMIM €y z -•ON iNaaNOdsau Hioa < ^ v 'AVaVA aMIAOO ^1V^ 0/0 'SUA 10 39V VIII^HSIIS 'IIX Y-£</ 'AVaVAaNIAOO alv^ o/a 'SHA £0aov viaaoMvs 'a^ 'AVaVA aMIAOO 31VT[ 0/M 'SUA ZZ 39V IV8 VUaSN ^•l ..^s-^, »..</<^^ ^-^ %wf ^ A •^^ '^ f siNaaNOdsa^ •SJA ('O'D) vauo5i loraisia y 'HVI 'vauox 'avoH NIVM ^^[Ia^Ina nvfNviaao 'vauo^ 'an ANVJM03 33MV^nSNI T[VIN3IHO 3H1 -; lNV^^a<IdV 60QZI {7U^ -'ON(O)-VIAI undsniaiv HMVOSIUVHHO jo lunoo HOIH aia.NOH 3HA NI ^ G), l' ••A»» APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT- 1923 ^,^^^, ^'.^ '^ ^' ^^ I^'.t^^;,^, ^?iiy?c@3}i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 904 of 2009 APPELLANT The Oriental Company Ltd. Insi-irance Versus RESPONDENTS Neera Bai and others. PRE8ENT :- Shri Sudhtr Agrawal, counsel for fhe appeUant Shri S.V.Purohit, counsel for fhe claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 None for respondents No. 6 & 7. APPBLLANT MISC. APPEAL fCl No. 905 of 2009 The Oriental CompanyLtd. Insurance Versus RESPONDBNTS Panwara Bai and ofhers. SB:- Hon. Shrl N.K. Agarwal, J. PRBSBNT :- Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for fhe appellant. Shri S.V.Purohit, counsel for fhe.claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5. None for respondents No. 6 & 7. ORAL ORDER (21-7-2011) By this common order, M.A.(C) No. 904/2009 and M.A.(C) No.905/2009 are being disposed of as fhe same are arising out of same accident. ^CS^ .-^li'"~% 1 I ^^ 1t '%,.. TB"'^^! ''^^•^^^ ^ 2. These are msiirance appeals against fhe award dated 19.3.2009 passed by fhe Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Korba (for short *the Commissioner') in case No. 45/WCAct/OS F and 46/WCAct/OS F. 3. Aforesaid appeals were- admitted for hearing on 30.09.2010 on the foUowmg substantial questions oflaw: "1. Whether fhe insurance company is responsible for payment of compensation without paying premium for any labour? 2. Wliether fhe tractor was used against fhe terms and conditions of the policy? If yes, then how fhe insurance company is responsible?" 4. As against Rs.5,00,000/- & Rs.5,00,000/- claimed as compensation in case No. 45/WCAct/OS F and that of case No.46/WCAct/08 F by respondents No.l to 5/claimants (in both cases) for the death of Govind Ram and Samaar Sin^i Patel arising out of and in ftie course of employment under respondent No.7, the leamed Commissioner has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,71,56 l/- in favour of the claimants ui case No.45/WCAct/08 F and Rs.1,14,036/- in case No. No.46/WCAct/08 F along with interest at the rate of 10% per anniim from the date of judgment tiU its rcalization, if the aforesaid amounts are not deposited wifhin 30 days from the date of judgoient. The leamed Commissioner held fhe ^ appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation. 5. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for fhe appellant/insurance company would submit that a bare perusal of the Kisan Package Policy issued by fhe appeUant would reveal: under the policy, fhe appellant/insurance company has not undertaken the risk of labourers sitting in the tractor bearing registration No.C.G.12-F/0911 and trolley bearing registration No.C.G.12-F/0912. It was further contended: deceased persons Govind Ram and Samaar Singh Patel, in fact, were not labourers of fhe tractor-trolley but were engaged by respondent No.7 to work in his quarry, and therefore, fhe leamed Commissioner has erred in law in fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insiirance company. 6. On fhe other hand, Shd S.V.Purohit, learned counsel appearing for claimants No.l to 5 (in both cases) would submit: fhe deceased persons were labourers of fhe tractor; policy is Kisan Package Policy which covers fhe risk of labourers and fhere is no need to interfere in fhe award passed by fhe leamed Commissioner. ...^y^ //m'%: ^ ^ljJ:13§N§t>\ B ^^S^^ jj 1 ^y/ '^.^^y 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused fhe award impugned includuig the record of fhe Tribunal. 8. In terms of Section 147 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act only in regard to reimbursement of the claim to a third party, a contract of insurance must be taken by the owners of ftie vehicle. It is imperative in nature. When, however, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks; it is permissible to enter into a contract of insurance m which event fhe insiirer would be bound to reimburse the owner of fhe vehicle storicfly in terms fhereof. 9. The UabiUty of ftie insurer to reunburse ttie owner in respect of a claim made by the fhird party, thus, is statutory whereas other claims are not. The contract of insurance, which is not statutory in nature, should be construed like any ofher contract. 10. I have noticed the terms of fhe contract of Insurance. The policy issued is Kisan Package Policy. A bare perusal of the policy would reveal: fhe appeUant/insurance company has not iindertaken risk of labourers sitting in the tractor- torolley by entering into special contract with fhe owner and by charging extra premium therefor. Shri S.V.Purohit, leamed counsel appearmg for respondents No.l to ..^'f^^:.' ^:;w^ "^, 5/claimants also failed to point out any such condition in fhe policy filed and proved in thie case by fhe appellant. Further, the deceased persons, at the ttrne of acddent, were diggmg out ftie soil fix>m fhe quany owned by respondent No.7 - Rajendra Rawat, owner of fhe tractor, at the relevant time is also not in dispute. 11. In view of above, it is crystal clear (hat the deceased persons were not covered under the Kisan Package Policy issued in the case. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any labourers sitting in a tractor and fhe uisurance company would have no liability fherefor. Accordingly, fhe substantial questions of law have been answered in afiiraaative. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, fhe appeals preferred by fhe insurance company are allowed. The award in so far as against the appellants/insurance is concemed is set aside. The liability to pay amount of compensation awarded by fhe leamed Commissioner fully rests on the owner. The respondents/claimaats are free to execute ftie award against the owner and driver of fhe vehicle i.e. respondents No.6 & 7. Ifthe amount already deposited and is disbursed to the claunants, fhe appellant/insurance company ^ ^ would be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of fhe vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain unaltered. The amount so deposited, if any, before fhe leamed Commissioner shaU be refunded to fhe appeUant. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Ar B