Ramibai vs Shamsher Singh and Others

P.D. Mulye, J.—This appeal filed by the Appellant u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.1984 given by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, in case No. 20 of 1981 whereby he has awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- only against Respondent No. 1 Shamsher Singh while dismissing the claim against the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated in brief thus: Truck No. CPE 9263 was registered in the name of Respondent No. 3 as its owner which was insured in his name with the United India Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. On the day when the accident took place in the night intervening 19th and 20th March, 1979 M/s. Sanghi Bros, had given the said truck on hire to Respondent No. 1, Shamsher Singh, in whose employment the deceased Radheshyam was working as a cleaner of said truck and was earning monthly wages of Rs. 225/- . The Appellants as parents, therefore, filed their claim before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation on an allegation that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver as a result of which Radheshyam who was traveling in the same truck as its cleaner sustained injuries to which he succumbed on 263.1979 after being admitted in the hospital.

The Respondents contested the Appellant''s claim. Appellant No. 1 died during the pendency of this appeal.

The learned Commissioner after recording evidence has awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- plus costs and interest against Respondent No. 1 only.

The grievance of the Appellant has been that the learned Commissioner has committed an illegality in dismissing claim against Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant after taking me through evidence submitted that admittedly the said truck was insured in the name of Respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the insurance company was liable as also Respondent No. 3 as he had given the truck on hire to Respondent No. 1 who was his agent. The Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error in dismissing the claim against those two Respondents and in support of this submission he placed reliance on the decisions reported in Geetabai and Others Vs. Hussain Khan and Others, ; Patharibai and Others Vs. Firulalji Shankarlal and Others, and Bharatbhai Kasturchand Shah and Another Vs. Mafatbhai Bababhai Makwana and Others,

On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the Respondents relying on the provisions of Section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act submitted that the Appellant has not made any allegations that the truck was being driven on behalf of Respondent No. 3, He also submitted that the agreement to hire the truck was with M/s. Sanghi Brothers in whose name there is no insurance policy and, therefore, Respondent No. 3 could not be held liable with the result that the insurance company could also not be held vicariously liable especially when the principal cannot be held liable. And in support of this submission he placed reliance on the decisions reported in R.B. Moondra and Co. Vs. Mst. Bhanwari and Another, and Hindustan Ideal Ins. Company Ltd. v. Pappu Poojary 1972 ACJ 433 (Mys).

It is no doubt true that the deceased was not an employee of Respondent No. 3. However, it is not in dispute that the said truck was given on hire to Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the Hire Agreement dated 27.6.1977. But the terms of the said agreement do not indicate that the said truck was in fact sold to Respondent No. 1, who thus can be said to be working as an agent of Respondent No. 3, who himself has not stepped into the witness box. Therefore, the Respondent No. 3 having insured the truck in his own name, he cannot be absolved of his liability on the basis of the Hire Agreement and consequently the insurance company also cannot be let off as it is vicariously liable on the basis of the insurance policy.

In the result this appeal succeeds. judgment given by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is modified to the extent that in addition to Respondent No. 1, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 18,000/- plus costs and interest as already awarded to the Appellant.

However, the costs of this appeal shall be borne by the respective parties.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.