Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tarachand Shrawanji Shambharkar, was a truck driver employed by respondent No.1, Prashant Ramchandra Hiranwar. On 29th June, 1997, while driving a truck bearing registration No. MH31W2717, he met with an accident and sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Nagpur, seeking compensation. The appellant contended that the accident occurred during the course of his employment and arose out of it. The truck was owned by respondent No.1 at the time of the accident, but the insurance policy was in the name of respondent No.3, the previous owner. The insurance company (respondent No.2) resisted the claim, arguing that the accident was due to the appellant's own negligence and that the policy was not in the name of the current owner. The Commissioner dismissed the claim, holding that the accident was caused by the appellant's negligence. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the appellant's testimony and the police panchnama, and found that the accident occurred while the appellant was driving the truck in the course of his employment. The court held that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, negligence of the workman is not a defence; the only requirement is that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The court also noted that the insurance policy was not transferred to respondent No.1, so the insurance company was not liable. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order, and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident, payable by respondent No.1 (the employer).
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer's Liability - Section 22, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The appellant, a truck driver, sustained injuries in a road accident on 29th June, 1997 while driving a truck owned by respondent No.1. The Commissioner under the Act dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident was due to the appellant's own negligence. The High Court held that negligence of the workman is not a defence under the Act; the only requirement is that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The court found that the accident occurred during employment and allowed the appeal, awarding compensation as per Schedule IV of the Act. (Paras 1-14) B) Insurance - Liability of Insurer - Transfer of Vehicle - The insurance policy was issued in the name of respondent No.3, the previous owner, and not in the name of respondent No.1, the current owner. The High Court held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the employer because the policy was not transferred to the new owner. The liability to pay compensation rests solely on the employer (respondent No.1). (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a truck driver, is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for injuries sustained in a road accident while driving the truck, and whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the employer despite the policy being in the name of the previous owner.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 28th October, 2010, and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident (29th June, 1997) until payment, payable by respondent No.1 (the employer). The insurance company (respondent No.2) was held not liable.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 22
- Section 3
- Section 4
- employer's liability
- insurance policy
- previous owner
- workman definition
- accident arising out of and in course of employment
