THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.3961 & 3962 OF 2004 DATED: 18-11-2009 C.M.A.No.3961 of 2004: Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Senior Branch Manager, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And N.Narasimha & another. .....RESPONDENTS C.M.A.No.3962 of 2004: Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Senior Branch Manager, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And K.Ramulu & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the judgments, dated 29-05-2004 and 31-05-2004, in W.C.Nos.129 &130 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.No.3962 of 2004 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,45,762/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and the claim of the 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.3961 of 2004 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.84,313/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. As both the appeals arise out of the same accident and involve the same question to be considered, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.No.3962 of 2004 are the parents of the deceased workman-K.Yadaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 19-09- 2003 while working as a labourer in the lorry bearing No.APG 6086. 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.3961 of 2004 is the injured-workman, who sustained injuries in the same accident. According to the claimants, on that day, both the workmen were engaged in the said lorry along with others to unload the sand and that while on duty, on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver the vehicle fell into a river resulting in the death of the said Yadaiah and injuries to E.Lingam, the claimant in C.M.A.No.3961 of 2004. It is further pleaded by the injured-workman that he was taken to Sadan hospital and from there shifted to Sri Sai Ram hospital, Langerhouse, Hyderabad for treatment. A case in Cr.No.184 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the lorry. 3rd respondent in C.M.A.3962 of 2004, who is the 2nd respondent in C.M.A.No.3961 of 2004, is the owner of the lorry and the vehicle is insured with the appellant- insurer. 5. The owner of the lorry filed a counter before the learned Commissioner admitting the employment, age and wages of the workmen and also admitting the occurrence of the accident on 19-01-2003 and that both the workmen were on duty at that time. 6. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation contending, inter alia, that the risk of the labourer is not covered by the policy. 7. The learned Commissioner, on a consideration of the evidence available on record, held that the deceased in W.C.No.129 of 2003 and the injured in W.C.No.130 of 2003 are both workmen as defined under Section 2(i) (n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). The deceased in W.C.No.129 of 2003 died and the claimant in W.C.No.130 of 2003 sustained injuries in the accident during the course of their employment. The learned Commissioner further held that the claimants in W.C.No.129 of 2003, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,45,762/- and the injured-claimant in W.C.No.130 of 2003 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.84,213/-. Accordingly, awards were passed fastening joint and several liability on the appellant-insurer holding that the risk of the workman is covered by the policy. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the policy-Ex.B1 does not specifically cover the risk of the labourers and it only covers the risk of the employees, implying the driver and cleaner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand would contend that the policy does not also specifically state that the risk of the driver and cleaner is covered and the coverage in respect of two employees would cover the risk of the employees, be the driver, cleaner or labourer. 10. The finding of the learned Commissioner that the deceased in W.C.No.129 of 2003 and the injured in W.C.No.130 of 2003 are labourers within the meaning of Section 2(i) (n) of the Act, is not seriously disputed. In fact, the owner of the vehicle filed a counter admitting that they were employed by him for the purpose of loading and unloading the sand and that the accident occurred while the lorry was making third trip on that day carrying sand. From the evidence on record also, it is established that the deceased and the injured are both workmen engaged by the owner of the lorry for the purpose of loading and unloading the sand that was being transported in the lorry and that the deceased died and the injured sustained injuries in the course of such employment. 11. The policy-Ex.B1 would show that the additional premium of Rs.50/- was paid to cover the risk of two employees. It does not specify whether the said coverage is in respect of the risk to the driver or cleaner. In the absence of any specific indication in the policy as to the nature or category of the employee covered by payment of additional premium, the payment of Rs.50/- towards risk to two employees cannot be limited or confined only to a driver or cleaner as sought to be contended by the appellant. If really the intendment is to cover the risk to only the driver and cleaner, there is no reason as to why the same was not specifically stated so in the policy. In the absence of any such specification, the expression ‘employee’ used in the policy cannot be construed narrowly so as to confine its purport and meaning only to driver or cleaner. When the labourers engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading are also admittedly employees insofar as the lorry is concerned, the risk in respect of two such labourers would certainly get covered by the payment of additional premium of Rs.50/- under Ex.B1. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as no premium is collected, specifically in respect of labourers the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation, is untenable for the simple reason that the labourers being employees, their risk is certainly covered by payment of additional premium of Rs.50/- under Ex.B1 as the said amount is collected towards workmen’s compensation to two employees. 12. In the circumstances, it must be held that the risk in respect of the deceased-workman in W.C.No.129 of 2003 and the injured-workman in W.C.No.130 of 2003 is certainly covered by the policy-Ex.B1 and therefore the learned Commissioner has rightly fastened joint and several liability on the appellant-insurer. The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner in both the cases is not disputed. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned awards passed by the learned Commissioner do not call for interference. 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th November, 2009 Tsy