AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—One Anil Kumar, the deceased, was employed as an attended under respondent No. 1 (private medical practitioner). On 13.10.1995 the respondent No. 1 (employer) directed the deceased workman at about 11.30 p.m. in the night to carry the drug load on the motor cycle from the clinic to his residence. The deceased while driving the motor cycle met with an accident and died. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased made a claim before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation. The Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,570. Insurer of the motor cycle is directed to pay the compensation, hence the insurer is in appeal.
Substantial questions of law that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as follows:
(a) Whether the entrustment of motor cycle by the respondent No. 1 to the deceased workman for the purpose of his clinic work is within the expression of ''engaged in driving of the vehicle'' as per the proviso (i)(a) to Section 147(1)?
(b) Based on the above facts whether the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner is justified in holding that the accident occurred in the course or and out of employment?
(c) When the claimants say that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,800 per month, whether the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is justified in assessing the wages at Rs. 2,000 per month?
Mr. A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (insurer) strenuously argued that the deceased was basically employed as an attender and not as a driver. The expression ''engaged in driving of the vehicle'' would apply only to four-wheelers and not to two-wheelers. It is argued that assuming that the deceased was casually employed to drive the motor cycle cannot be deemed to be a driver and the entrustment of driving of the vehicle would be in the nature of casual employment, therefore, would not be a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. On the above grounds it is argued that the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner was not justified in holding that the deceased was a workman and that accident occurred in the course of and out of employment.
The relevant portion of the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is extracted herein for convenient reference:
Provided that a policy shall not be required:
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee:
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
In the Motor Vehicles Act, the motor vehicle is broadly defined to include four-wheelers, two-wheelers, transport vehicles, non-transport vehicles, light vehicles, etc., as a motor vehicle. The definition of a motor vehicle does not make any distinction between the two-wheelers and four-wheelers. Therefore, it is impermissible to argue that the expression ''engaged in driving the vehicle'' should be construed only to mean entrustment of four-wheelers for driving.
The duties of an attender would be varied and it is natural that the deceased had to attend to all the directions of his employer. The direction to drive the vehicle may not be a regular part of his duty but it should be construed as a casual employment for the purpose of business and trade of the employer. In that view the deceased is a workman within the definition of 2(1)(n) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. Vs. Ramu Pasi and Another, , fully applies to the facts of the present case. The policy issued covers the risk of a driver ''engaged in driving''. Therefore, the insurer is very much liable to pay the compensation.
The risk of accident in the course of driving is inherent in the employment of driving of the vehicle. There is nexus between nature of employment and the cause of death. Hence the finding of the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner that the accident is in the course of and out of employment is also sound and proper.
The claimants have stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,800 per month, but the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner has assessed the wages of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month which is not proper. The reckonable wages is to be taken at Rs. 900 the relevant factor is 213.57. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,92,213 (Rs. 900 x 213.57) payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from one month after the accident till payment.
Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above.