HIGH OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench : Hon’ble Shri DiliQ Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.(C). No. 139/2006 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 M.A.(ci. No. 302/2006 National \lnsurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Oftice, Vyapar Vihar Road, Taha Complex, Bilaspur (CG) a Appellant (Non-applicant No.3) Versus ; ,E r b Appellant National Insurance Company Limited, (Non-applicant No.3) Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Taha Complex, Bilaspur(CG) i Versus f Respondents 1. Ramnatn Singh,§ S/o Late Sapuran Singh (Applicant) ' Maravi, aged 30iyears, R/o Binauri & Post Office Kathakoni, Tah. & P.S. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur(CIG.) (gm-applicant No.1) 2. , . Prahlad Sriwas,§ S/o, Khorbahra Sriwas, aged 36 years, R/o Village Ameri, Tahsil- Takhatpur, P.$. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur(CG) E (Non-applicant No.2) 3. Amarjeet Singh $haga, S/o Niranjan Singh ’(dead) u § Legal Representatives:- (A) Smt Gurmeet Kaur, Wd/o Late Amarjeet Singh, aged not known. (B) Harmeet’ Kaur, D/o Late Amarjeet Singh, agedabout 21 years. (C) Harspal Singh, S/o Late Amarjeet Singh, aged about 19years (D) Niranjan Singh Bhagat, S/o Late Bhagat Singh, aged about 75 years (E) Smt Surmeet,Kaur, W/o Niranjan Singh Bhagat, aged about 70 years All are R/o 27 Kholi Chowk, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tah & Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ”‘1 w\ m ‘ é ‘ Resgondehts . Amar Singh GoJd S/o Darshan Singh, aged \_ (Appliclantf ” ‘ 25 years, R/o Village Binauri, Tah. & P.S. (Non-agglicant w No.11 2. Takhatpur, Prahlad Sriwas, Distt Bilaspur(C.G.) S/o Khorbahra Sriwas, aged 36 years, R/o Village Ameri, Tahsil- (Non-agglicant No.2! — 3. Amarjeet Singh ghaga, S/o Niranjan Singh , Takhatpur, P.S. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ‘ (dead) Legal Representatives: (A) Smt Gurmeet Kaur, Wd/o Late Amarjeet Singli, aged not known. ‘ (B) Harmeet Kaur, D/o Late Amarjeet Singh, aged about 21 years. (C) Harspal Sirhgh, S/o Late_Amarjee Singh, aged abou:t 19yéars Sihgh, (D) Niranjan aged about Singh 75 Bhagat, years S/o‘ Late Bhagat (E) Smt SurmeetiKaur, W/o Niranjan Singh Bhagat, aged abo’ut 70 years All are R/o 27 Klioll Chowk, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tah &;Distt. Bilaspur (CG) v Aggéal under Section 173 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. claimant/respondent No.1 (in M.A.(C).No.302/2006) Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the respondent No.2. Shri Avinash Chandu Sahu, counsel for e Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3 (A) to (E). / O R A L O R D E R (Passed on 26-09-2008) This order shall govern M.A.(C).No.13972006 ad M.A.(C).No.302/2006. ’2. Both the appeals i.e. M\.\A.(C).No. 139/2006 and M.A.(C).No.3Q2/2006 .are by the lnsui’er and arise out of the award passed in claim case No.111/2005 on 29.04.2006 and the award passed in claim case No.92/2005 on 20.07.2006,. in both the cases 4‘“ AdditionéT Motor Accidents Clainhs Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth ‘the Tribunal) has - t th n ‘lfastened the Ilablhty to pay compensaion on the appellant/msurance t [ company in claim case No 11 1/2005 compensatuon of Rs 1 O5 680l— was awarded whereas In claim case No 92/2005 compensahon of Rs 1 79 600/ was awarded ' ' ‘ i 3. . It Is not disputed that on 25 06 2004) re the date of accrden " dumper No C G 10 ZB/0558 (henceforth ‘the dumper) was Insured by the appellant owned by respondent No 3 and driven by respondent No 2 It Is also not disputed that the sard dumper met With an acoldent In which Ramnath and Amar Singh who were the labourers employed by the owner of the dumper sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20% ‘ 4. The sole ground urged by Shri Dashr’ath Gupta learned counsel for the insurer in this appeal Is that under the policy of insurance issued by the appellant/insurer no premium had been I received by the appellant/insurer to cover the risk of the labourers/employees of the owner lt was further argued that the insurer had examined Shri Sudharshan Das D W1 who was Deputy Manager of the appellant/Insurance company to substantiate that premium had been paid' by the owner only for covering the risk of the driver and the helper as also ’ the risk of third party. On these premises; it was urged that the Tribunalv erred in fastening liability to pay compensation o'n the appellant/insurer, 5. Ms Sangeeta Mishra learned counsel for the respondents No 3 (A) to (E) argued that the insurance policy Ex D 1 clearly shows that risk of I two employees under the WorkmensCompensation Act wascovered since premium Was recovered by theinsurer. On this count, it Was further argued'that the witness for the‘insurance company did not explain the entry In the policy of Insurance relating to recovery of premium for two employees under the Workmen s Compensation Act 6. ' Shri AVInash Chand Sahu learned counsel for respondent No 1 (In _ MA (C) No 302/2006) and Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri learned counsel y for respondent No.2 (In both the appeals) argued in support-of impugned ' ’ aWard. . g 7 . _ i it 1 ¢¢ t 7. Having heard the rival submissions, i have perused the record. In view of the admitted facts, the only point that requires consideration is whether premium was recovered by the appe Iant/insurer for covering the risk of.two employees under the Workmen’s compensation Act. In claim case No. 92/2005 Mr. Sudarshan Das, Deputy Manager of the insurance company had stated categorically as under: g "Wm“W$¥mfa§asq§aaémag—crm$ wamavmmww‘mwsimwm $md$mwmawnata3¥a$il¥1amrr§g Wattaw$amgwmmwufawm mamamgmstdwmwmm anWWsIsva—siaa‘aimutwah’w Wamfaisc'iawwémtdtstHsl" The same witness ie Mr Sudarshan Das in claim case No.1 1 1/2005 in paragraph 3’maxd‘e a contradictEory statementas under: l‘mww$mvmas¥amehqmuww weimawers‘mwsmma’mmwsl" lnA these appeals, policy of insurance was filed which specifically mentions that the risk of two employees under the )Workmen’s Compensation Act was covered. The injured persons being admittedly the employees of the owner, their risk was covered under the policy issued by the appellant/insurer. 8. In this view of the matter, l am of the considered opinion that the . 'Tribunal has «rightly fastened the liability to pay compensation on the Y appellant/insurer. There is no merit\in both the appeals‘which are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be placed in M.A.(C.).No.302/2006.