In law, when
a party to the proceedings finds that the judgement is not found acceptable –
they have the legal remedy of appeal in a higher Court. In many cases, it has been observed that
Court tends to interpret rules in favour of victims, more so towards workmen as
the laws are intended to be beneficial legislations.
Motor Accident Claims
Tribunals were constituted for providing succour to the victims of road
accident – there are times when the victim can choose to agitate under
different forums. In the impugned case
before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
on an appeal preferred by PSU Insurer – decided on 08/03/2011.
This was an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation
Act 1923, against the award passed in W.C.No.73 of 2006 dated 29.10.2008 on the
file of the Learned Commissioner of Workmen Compensation cum Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli.
On 10.3.2004 the ill-fated
lorry rammed against a minidor which was driven by the deceased victim and was
proceeding for supplying vegetables. The
parents of the deceased filed claim petition claiming sum of Rs.439000/- Sadly, during the pendency of the claim petition,
one of the petitioners (father of the victim too) died in a road traffic
accident. The application was transferred to the file of
the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour
Thirunelveli. The owner of the vehicle as
well as the employer of the deceased driver did not contest the claim
petition. The Insurers (who eventually
had to pay) resisted the claim on the grounds of : -
1.There was no
relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the owner of the
truck.
2.The
deceased being the driver of the minidor was not
having valid and effective driving license to drive the particular type of
vehicle at the time of accident.
An official of the appellant insurance company was examined as RW
1, and during the course of his examination some documents too were marked. On appraising the evidences both oral and
documentary the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner cum Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli passed an award of Rs.3,21,865/- after rejecting
the contention of the appellant insurance company, and the appellant insurance
company was also directed to pay this amount to the first respondent/second
claimant within 30 days, failing which the award shall carry interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
Being
aggrieved by the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner cum
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli, the appellant insurance
company approached High Court by way of an
appeal. In the appeal the following
substantial question of law were formulated : -
1.Whether
the Dy Commissioner of Labour is correct in holding that the defences available
to the Insurer under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be
raised in a proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ?
2.Whether
the Learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Dindigul is correct in directing the appellants/Insurance Company to
pay interest on the award, from the date of the accident, which is in
contradiction to Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act ?
The quintessential aspect
of ‘employer employee’ relationship was not questioned as it was a road
accident and the victim was driving the vehicle at the ill-fated hour. The quantum of compensation was also not disputed by the appellant Insurance Company. The counsel for Insurer vehemently objected
the finding of the Learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner that the appellant Insurance Company is not entitled to avail
the defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the
proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act. The second contention was on
direction to pay interest from the date
of accident, in total negation of the
principle laid down in Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. These two substantial questions of law were to be the rail on which the discussion of the whole appeal
was sought to travel.
The proviso to Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of Motor
Vehicles Act.
"Section
149(2)- No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect
of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in
which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court
or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of proceedings, or
in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon
pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such
proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to
defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:-
(a)
that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one
of the following conditions, namely:-
(ii) a
condition excluding driving by an named person or persons or by any person who
is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or
obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification."
The vital and relevant Q
was whether the defence available to the insurer under Section
149 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 can be availed in the proceedings under
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, particularly in an appeal under Section 30(1)
of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. 12. It is pertinent to note here that
in the term "The Workmen's Compensation", the word
"Workmen's" has been substituted by Act 45 of 2009, Section 5 with
effect from 18.01.2010 vide S.O.No.101(E) dated 18.01.2010 and now as amended
by Act No.45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010, the Act is called as The
Employees' Compensation Act 1923.
Section
19 of The Employees' Compensation Act 1923 (Workmen's Compensation Act 1923)
reads as follows; "Section 19 - Reference to Commissioners -
(1) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured as or is not [an employee]) or as to amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by [a Commissioner]."
In the instant case, before
the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation also, a defence was taken up by the
appellant/Insurance Company that the deceased being the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the
time of accident and hence as contemplated under Section 149(2)(a)(ii), the
insurer is not at all liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as he had
violated the policy conditions to that effect. [perhaps instead of seeking remedy under a Sec of MV Act, which
is not relevant in WC – Q on whether someone who is not legally authorized to
perform a duty can still be termed as employee should have been raised !]
The driving license of the deceased was not
produced before the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, either by
the appellant/Insurance Company or by the first respondent/claimant. [how fair is the expectation that the Insurer who is not a direct
party and who would never have access, should produce DL, if they are to rely
on that !!] The
Insurers sent a notice to the owner of the vehicle, who is the respondent in
the claim petition to disclose the details of the driving license of the
deceased driver. This notice too did not evoke any response from the owner of
the vehicle. It was a Q on whether the
Insurance Company is exempted from liability. By way of
answer to this question, it was held by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
that the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act do not prescribe that if a
driver is employed, he should possess a valid license. This finding was given
after following the decision reported in 1999 ACJ 236 (Karnataka). Only on the
footing of the above cited decision, the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation has come to the conclusion that the appellant Insurance Company is
liable to pay compensation as the Workmen's Compensation Act does not prescribe
that if driver is employed, he should possess a valid license.
The learned counsel for the Insurer contended that the insurance policy itself was
issued as per Section 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which have also
been placed in Chapter 11 of the said Act, and therefore, the benefit is
claimed under the policy which was issued as per Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. The insurer is at liberty to take the defences available under
Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He contended that the
appellant/Insurance Company is not precluded from taking the defences available
under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act in a proceeding under the
Employees'(Workmen's) Compensation Act 1923. He has also raised another
question that if Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is not made
applicable to a proceeding under Employees'(Workmen's) compensation Act, 1923 how the claim petition claiming benefit under the
Insurance policy issued by the mandate of the provision of Chapter 11 i.e.,
under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act can be entertained by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour ?
It is clear
that the object of both the Acts, viz., the Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen
Compensation Act is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The
only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the WC Act is
concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under the Act while the relief
provided under Chapters X to XII of the MV Act is available to all the victims
of accidents involving a motor vehicle. This conclusion is
supported by section 167 of the MV Act, under which, it is open to the
claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the WC Act or under the
MV Act.
It was decreed by the Court that upon careful analysis of
the evidences both oral and documentary, and considering the submissions made
on behalf of both sides- the Court was of the considered view that the
conclusion of the Learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is unassailable
and may be endorsed, as the deceased was not disqualified for holding or
obtaining a driving license. It was stated that appellant insurance company
also failed to prove that the deceased was disqualified from holding or
obtaining a driving license or never had any license at all !! . The appeal by
the Insurer was dismissed and the award of the WC Commissioner, Tirunelveli was
confirmed. There was no order on cost.
Another
time, another case, against the likes of the Insurer – though none would voice
any opinion against the beneficial piece of legislation – Insurance is a
contract between two parties – here the vehicle owner and the Insurer. In WC – it is not binding and is a
supplemental contract between these two parties and should only be decided on
the insuring terms and conditions of the contract. There are lessons to be
learnt for all those involved – which however, would tend to be overlooked as
people are busy in their normal day to day activities.
With regards
– S. Sampathkumar
28.11.2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment