AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,J.
1.This appeal is by the insurer. An autorikshaw capsized and the driver died. The employer-employee relationship between that driver and owner of the autorikshaw has been found by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. Compensation has been fixed and ordered to be paid in favour of the dependents of the driver. Such payment also carries with it interest component in terms of section 4A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The short issue raised by the insurer in this appeal is that the vehicle did not have a valid certificate of fitness at the time of accident and therefore, in terms of section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle could not have been put to use. The liability to indemnify is thus denied by the insurer. The insurer also challenges the direction to pay interest from the date of the accident.
In so far as the second among the questions, liability to pay interest in terms of section 4A commenced from the date of the accident, the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 59/11, re-reconciling the different precedents in that regard succinctly lays down the principle. We follow it and repel the contention of the appellant insurer in that regard.
On to the other plea that the insurer is entitled to repudiate on the ground that the vehicle did not have a valid certificate of fitness, we came to know that the insurance policy was renewed on 27.6.2006 and the accident took place on 16.8.2006. There is no oral evidence on record either by the owner or the insurer asserting before the Commissioner as to the existence or otherwise of the certificate of fitness on 27.6.2006, the date on which the policy was renewed. The assertion of the insurer before the Commissioner and before us appears to be on the basis of a police paper, that is, to say, a petty case registered against the owner as disclosed by Ext. R2. We have examined that document. We see that there is a correction in that document. The corrected version is that the petty case is charged on the ground that the vehicle did not have ''C.F.''. This entry is made after giving out the earlier entry to the effect that it does not have a valid insurance cover. The existence of a valid insurance cover is not disputed. The question whether the vehicle had a certificate of fitness is not something on which the right of the dependents of the deceased should revolve.
Learned counsel for the employer relied on the judgment reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and others, . Learned counsel for the insurer says that the said decision occupies only a field relating to motor accidents vis-�-vis third party claims and would not apply to liabilities under the Workmen''s Compensation Act which would be covered by insurance policies.
On the face of the lack of evidence in that regard and because we find a specific plea by the insurer before the commissioner that the vehicle did not have a valid certificate of fitness, we are of the view that the said issue relating to the right of the insurer to repudiate on such ground has not been addressed by the Commissioner. The impugned order does not reflect consideration of that plea and issue arising for decision as between the insured and the insurer. In the aforesaid circumstances, we order this appeal directing that the entire amount in deposit and covered by the impugned order will be released to the dependents and the Commissioner will decide de novo the liability of the insurer. If it is concluded that the insurer is not liable to pay the amount, it will be entitled to recover the amount from the insured. For such limited purpose, the claim petition is remanded. No costs