Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Amravati, in Application (WCA) No.6 of 2007, and the order dated 22.09.2009 on Exh. 2 regarding no fault liability. The respondent, Shaikh Rahim s/o Shaikh Yusuf, a coolie/loader, was travelling on a truck bearing registration no. KA19AB2106 when he met with an accident, suffering injuries and alleged 40% disability. He filed proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The employer (truck owner) and driver failed to appear. The insurer defended on the ground of breach of policy conditions, specifically that no valid driving licence was produced, and contended that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner awarded compensation. The High Court, after hearing arguments, upheld the compensation, noting that the employer-employee relationship was not in dispute and that the accident occurred while the claimant was working as a loader. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the liability of the insurer.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The relationship between the truck owner (employer) and the coolie/loader (employee) was not in dispute. The claimant was engaged as a loader by the owner of the truck and met with an accident while travelling on the truck. The Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. (Paras 3-4) B) Workmen's Compensation - No Fault Liability - Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Commissioner passed an order on Exh. 2 regarding no fault liability. The appeal challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 22.02.2011 and the order dated 22.09.2009 on Exh. 2. (Para 2) C) Insurance - Breach of Policy - Insurer's Liability - The insurer contended that there was breach of policy conditions as no valid driving licence was produced. However, the court upheld the compensation award, implying that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the employee despite alleged breach, as the employer-employee relationship and the accident in the course of employment were established. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act was justified in awarding compensation to the claimant despite the insurer's contention of breach of policy conditions and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Amravati, in Application (WCA) No.6 of 2007 and the order dated 22.09.2009 on Exh. 2 are upheld.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- Section 4
- No fault liability
- Employer-employee relationship
- Course of employment
- Breach of policy
- Insurer's liability
