IN THE HIGH court? or KARRATAKA AT H DATED 'nus THE 28?" DAY on 20iVi8«' " mm uommn MR. ausT1cE"c:H:1)ANA1vDA "l'I.'l'fl'. I.I'l"I'II'9fl'lI! Ill) _'lI!fl"I"Il"I'n'...:; slant lava! nuns nuns: uyvuuvgv .-.aAnIu.v my gc_gunneous I-'irit ' 93:.-at" fietgeem ' NEW mam ASS LIRA,is_i€: :3 (ad «L'1*b_ REP BY THE ::'sEN;0R"bms1<:-MAL" ' a.' panama? KEMPEGOWDA reorgp, BANK oF;zN:)1A BUILDING BANGALQRE _ _ V' 1 .. SMT SH1'1N"I'E.1':Tx, Ivi1'u.5GR " mo up MuDD;a;L;'N(3A1AH ' svRi;Hu1§&EED, MAJOR ' mi:-*3 A1::r"\'f_!I,~~ run cum' C1I.IA1\l"l" A 54'"! \.(f \--V 'I-IIVJ-4.: VJIIJII-III-II-IL '% R/AT no 34, 4TH MAIN -- F-RASHANTHNAGAR ..VIJ_AYNAGAR, BANGALORE-10 ¢_ Sm LAXMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS '4 ca " g 4 GANGAMMA, T AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS (Tl AI-*'PELLPsN'l' 'vu~_u;«/ TN) 6 RANGAIAH AGED ¢L%LI'l' C28 YEARS 7 SMT. LAXMAMMA. W_/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 35'-D RESPONDENT IS THE WIFE,
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE ‘
CPHLDREN OF RAJU, T.
GT” AND 7T” RESPONDEN’1’S’AR.E PARENTS V
OF UECEASED EXJU,
4 8.5 5 RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS, _
REPRESENTED BY 35?” RESPQ–NDEN’I’;’
KUNIGAL TALUK, ‘rL1rp1KLiR..DxsT£:}1ci’;’~, ” ‘ jv ..
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRL. FCIR £<3_-5 V .
SR1. rim. suN’:’xa..gAJ-Q*u_PrA_ I-‘oR,R1,.’
RI. SHRIPAIEV SH:-\S=TRI._FfJR”R6 AND R7)
:1*?i§i:é{ r§9i’L»:~it’; Uréfiék SECTIGN 173(1) MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDC.-M_Ei*J’I’ ‘AND-AWARD DATED: 27.12.2002 PASSED IN
Mvc r¢Qf131o;’20c::;’-Agra»__’ma – LE 0;? THE MEMBER, M!-.CT-\.»’,
ADDL.JUD(3_E, CC)UR’1″‘v.C)F’ SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY, (SCC-H
1310.5}, PART L11′ ALL’.”)’.’J_ING ‘!”’14.E.’L’-£”.I.-.A.!d1\.”£ PETITEQN FOR COMPENSATLON.
This laaving Lt-sex: 1′:-;sc1’\.r:-:1, tiulilillg «.11; .[‘t_ir
” preiiouncexpent, day, VENUGOPALA GOWDA. J.,
» pi’i)j}GuI’lQBQ “fly: fuilowillgz
-T’I1’T\l”&-Il’i’.’NI”I’
Afipullm;L was the im-sn.u’e1′ of bus bca1’i11g 1’cgisu’atio11
‘ A 02 9900. The said bus has met with an accident,
V “”-311 ‘?.Q5…00!), en a:x_=_n_;11I_. ,1’ wL1i:l;, one Raja @ Raju
having sustained faiai iiljllfififi, has lat:-31* sui:<.:Luii'u'-ed. His
\\
'//
/, –
Ht§EJf_Li R. Jaiprakaesh, ieaI11er;i Cuuiistil PT ui”
U)
legal I’Cpl’t:SBI1LaliVtiS, r¢::spondt:11t 3 In 7 l1cI’Bi11,M_1i:’:1Vd’ a
claim petition under Stzctiuli 166 of U16
AJL, 1988 (i’I.11′ s.s11¢_)1’t.. ‘am Act’) Qeiilxsi;’t.}..1e-4.ap}_Jr:Iia11L’i11 the
Ivioior Ac<:ide11'L. Ciaim:-3 'FI*ibuna}–'v', Ba31"aiL="<: Cit" "v{f{::
short Tribulial') clajmitug L(}1V1Ti1Jc11sat;i4J_Ii:? 'f'i'ibunuI
considc1'i11g the said (31%_diI1I_: p¢:iiiiQ1,iValo11g vAvil"l1 a11olhc1'
clailn petition, filed by_w_e3;t T1<3_1V.l;'é__i' fi11j=u1'.t':dfl_' ;1éi'su11 in the said
accidczzi, by31L:f;;::;11r11i.;u1%; j';.L1;,:ej.1t~..ai1d scparatt: award,
has awa1'(it;d*f_4i3;1 i'£tv'0_1,i1*:.'L_'Qi""'fl1ég of Raja @ Ram,
Rs.3,6{ii.{{.ei;9sL aLW8"/'o per a11:uum, I'asl.ening
the 1iabi1i_Ly "i;1ppella11i.. Being a.gg1'i::ved, (ht:
appgsiiant liiés éxppcal.
ap pr:1lLajiL’va:i’i1d S1″iyulhs Rajanna and Sripad V. Shaslzty,
::2;uf11t:V(i Counsel for the I’ti:5].)0lldt.’:IlLS 3 Lo 7. We also
g§é1’Liscd the 1’cc01’d 111aj11La1′:ut:d by the ‘I’1’ibuI1al.
K-
/_ .
£»
3. Sri R. Jaip1’akas11, learned Counsel
*=1P1lella:¢1L contended that the vehicle ‘
_¢.;.i_e11L i..: 5;; pubh: ee1viee:v”‘vel’1ie1e; -tile” ‘-_deC’eased
ar.imii.i.ediy was a in aisd “11:-:i1*:e ‘=:l’1e.L
appellant. was not required tl1e_’1″ieV.k ame1eane1’V
under Section 147 :4_’t.he 1. Cetiixsel relied
upon the decision of CuuI’L in the
case of Fnm¥;$’?-‘mi!-* -7. #131 L; Asemgneg C99
Ltd and ‘a¢i2i«m;, re_15e?f’ted”‘e’in”‘;iiFR 2063 S” 23
eolxtend ‘i*i.sk._c5{TVV__Ll1e_* elea.ue1′ wurking in a public
sewiee fieliic:1e’eai1:1u!._4be,”held Lu have been covered under
Lln-:_ policy. Ceellsel eulxtended that the Tribuxlal
” “.. I O 5
as-.-if ::\u§uVcyuw11il1i}1t) Lin IQ-fit->\:!..I’I’ ‘l’|1’l\)\;1.|-2Il)1l_\: Egg.’ .-IJHHU
\.ov¥4I-La-v 1-1 1.24′: ‘I’
fa’:§I_.e11eti””_ii;eV.0’Vi’iéibfiiLy on the appeiiallt. Lczarned Goullsei
euB111it£edv””fl1at., in pursuance of the sun motu order
. 0y this Cou1’L on 27.06.2006, the appellant, has
pi9odh.ced the policy issued in respect of the said vehicle
“eev-“iii” lhe “eried “Wm: 24.12.1991 «
H
.. uuu .. 23.12 -000 1’11;
\_
//k.
I
order 4} Eu
UPI
the perusal of which, it is clear that the 1isI§…pii’.;-i’})e1’ee11
employed as a cleaner is not covered.
“,1 _ _ __-_- f’o.’~I,, ‘
4. Per “””
contended that, in the faeL’s._.a1.1Li cii*eui1iela1°1ces of the
ease, eoilsiderilig the: c0vcI”ii11ctLe 1. issued by Allie appellant
in respect of the velii_ele_ :que~siiLi1;1_, the laibuixal is
,n_1e1il’1et_1 __1f£;’1&_L_.’i.Jl_,’_, ,.c _.- _ 7’7 -. – – _.e_1.rpell__uI_-I_-e.1ne;.
®u isel def} ._V111i¢1i:’tl1e’g éippeiiaili having not
pmdueed l_l1e5′.in§u1ia1–1ce«policy in respect of the vehicle in
quesliuii.__bcfu19e=._l.l1e’Tiibeiiel, it is not e11LiLled to produce
LllC4§aIIl1.t3 iii Learned Counsel coniended that
.V 1 1
e “27′ ‘PC anu hence the
policy v–._’:prediuced by the appellant should not be
i eciieicleled. Leauied Cuu11sell’u1’Lhe1′ conlelided, by relying
the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in
1 11ii’E:i, Ieafiieu QJi.amsei=.1uii i’CSpUij1uéiii.S «.1 ‘3
the liability ofa cleaner wou’d “ei. “i:Eude’1 in..$;}1e’:.:4r_}v+.:i’as.;-ii _
of two more workman and hence Ll.;e»ap1>eii:11″i&.f}- ii’1’5l1!A’Vt3’I’__iS” . V
liable Lu pay compe11salio11.
5. ‘{;’unei:.le1’é31-‘ me xiv:-:1 e;)1.sL;1;iiL.;11e a11d.,Ll1e»51’ecu1’d of
the case, the points ‘L’uai.’a1i ‘C,_ff;)if 0ij1%’fc:5i1side*”‘{ic11 are:
1. W1_1e(I1e_1′ U;1e’1ir-Qduczgd’ by the appellant
appeal i:.==4n”!2e”~rer;eived on record and
g’con«.sideI*ed fu. j deefiding the appeal?
2;. “”” t.he’—1’iek””e1′–v3$1 pe1’so11 employed as a
* _ .c1ea..:1e_r”«ir1’«.a”pueblic service vehicle is covered
‘ _u11z._’;e1~-.4’i;};e=p01i;:§’?
ll’
_3. L”~W1’1e131e1’A’~!i1e.. ~’5i’1’ibLu1a1 is jusmieci ‘I1 fasteiiiir
‘ ” th*c..1_iabilit;v on the appellant?
No.1:
15.3; Wit.l”i:’1-.V_:*ega1’Li to the pI’0dl.1Cli0I1 of additional evidence
‘in (“.l\
in ., Wm-L, sub 1–…«.=,-e -:1; «_£1e.a_»1e 12.7 of Order 41
of states ihat, the parliets 1.0 an appeal} shali ii-at ue
1..
_ __€:ntil.led to preduce additional evidence, whether oral or
dueumcmtaly, except Luuler celiain ci1’eu111sl.ances
em1u=.:ez’a.L_.t_i 11; Clauses (.21). [_aa) and (b) tlzerein. Said
\
provision enables the appellate court to allow K
document to be produced, to enable it to -p:1’otf_1ou13dt:e
rx
passed by this Court on i27.t’36p.si2i)u6 reads as S’:
“Havi11 heard both Sides for Vs~:.11’1ie–V-tjlxie
‘. . c 3 ,
‘ ‘e feel that it is in t..he~—fit;neee of t_h.*i:1rr._,§Mj:r_.1
W V A _
direct the a13pe£I:c11__1t–I11stu’;;1__1ee Co. to
produce the Doiicv ‘ir1’£t§c’lst:ton;–.
Le Lt.1eL»–.be oue week
fi”‘”1I1 ttiis _by e u.*’1’:%e}~—for t..e Ins.
Co. $11 J’aip1*e1sas1jx.__
‘iist-. this’-~r:1é1ttcr week after
i;1ext_..’_’ ”
_ V. clear U1id:lt’,Wt.t]!3 said order has been passed by
_L1I1de”‘1f cl;_iuse’~” (1)) of sub-Ruie (1) of Rule ‘4’.
I1′ 1 F1.
—- P1 .-1′ ..3. .
K 15ursua11t to the said order, appellant has produced
“relevant policy of the vehicle in question. The said
order has been passed, in order to enable the Court to
I I
pro””ou1’ce the _}ud:._-;me1…. and .,.r sI…,n.;t.s.-mI_1..l _.ause,
Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the 01′ P.
Purushotham Reddy and another :18 M/s
L:-.1, reported :11 AIR 2002 so 771, consiqcriizg rtheiiirscopig
..x- …1… fiw’ K
U1 Oiupi iiiib-V}’=f’1” “”
of clause: (11) 01′ Rifle 2?
follows:
‘”‘….yci. siigiuid ‘Li1iv’.}fii’«’a’i.i:-{iii as
depriving the HiI§.;hfCo1–1r’t§.of power to require
any document to bc;_p1’u:ii11;t:d_,”1.1:: witnc:-is to
be exammed 1:9 r:.1f.:.ah1_::.it.to.,pr::~:1ou11<ie judwent,
or for a_11y,_o~%11eIif within the
mcaniI1g–_pf ;?:'iau$é.i'u:i}_ of s_iIb~i':iit'-;*{1} of E1116 2? of
O1'dt:1°::'4 1.} .T.i1eiL poxjawi"-i;i1<_1¢*;:ft::s. in the Court and
that can 1t"t- alone: whicfi": risi hcéariiig the appeal. It
i-.~.-;"Liie C3Lli_i1'i; '(:_-1_ut_.i moi of any 0f the
parfics) Var:-d~.. _»ti1e"c;_cins_cie11ce of the Court feeling
ini'ii't1i§.cci i11':sé1i,ii-';iTs;1(3ip1:y ciispussai of 1-is whit}: rule
the cxclvsisé of"'t;1r1i$"'1:1oiovcr"
,4.,11f1 :,;cias»::_ of tilt; "" 'Venkatararnaiah us A.Seetharama
r.i__1€Eq2;."¢:id_g:j:"s:n:;titiA.4::¢b_thers, reported in AIR 1963 sc 1526,
E-Iu1s;'!…*¢~'.S-u}};1'e1nc Csuu1'l..h..-.2 11-::l.. as .01 t was:
"…. Apart frolu ifnis, ii. is wail to r6ii1t:.mi:i:'I'-
AA ' . tliat the appellate court has the power to allow
additional evidence not only if it 1'c:qui1'cs such
ggriggncg "ta fin,-;a_!;11e it in prone! Inca iudmnent"
. '0" 'V–'–'—-"" ."""'flJ"'
but also for "any other subaslz-uitial cause". T1lt.'.l't3
may well be cases where even fhcirugh the Cfilift
finds that it is able Lo pI'0llUuI1Ct: judgment. on
the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot
:~;{1'i
“to enable it to pronounce jL1dgu1e111.'{…__’iL ”
considers that the interest r._”.r~i3’__
something which relnains obscure :-;£_;ouid ” be
filled up so that it can pror1_o1;u:1ce it-s”judg11ent’i11
a more fiii-1-:far.;!.o1′;;,»’ Ill5.:l.1111¢.’.!?4.’= Sue}; will
one of allowing additional’: fevi’def1ee’~
113 .._
other subsiamiai cauee” Lii1de:* R 27′ . u” of ‘wee V
Code.
{1′?’} 1!, is easy L; soul; -‘eqL;1’e1i1..1;L -1″
the Court to ellable it’to_ p1’o_;1oi;Lr,1ce judgme 1t or
for any o’L’ue1′ suiJ%zsta11i,i:fai’}::au§ seVielsoi likely to
arise ordinarily 11111658 vso:j1e–“‘i11l1e.’ lacuna or
defect beeuz.:1e:s;’appa1.’e;1i;..jo;1 :;t1i,exa111i11atio11 of
the e’.’i:”1e1*;::e. ‘I’hatfi is’ why i:.1″Parsoti1.n Thakur 1!
Lal !}«Ioi’1aV1’~-‘TE-;ak«i_1;f,” 53 “-‘Imi App 254: (AIR 1931
PC ;j_the” ._ Viiourgcii whiie discussing
w’i1e1l;t;’$-‘ a(i:litio1;al evidexice can be admitted
;’)bee1.ve(‘é_:V ‘
” ._ “,IL ‘ 1z.1a”y.fi;e””i:¢§'(1Lii1ed to enable the Court Lo
pronmmce judgment, or for any” other
‘:-_’-ubsla11E,ia1 ‘camse, but in either case it. must be
requires it. This is the plain
g1’a3s.;1″aalical reading of the eub–clau-ee. Tlze
3 T. Ieg_ii’imate occasion for the exercise of this
« disc1fetio1″1 is not wllelievt-.:_;r bei’o1’e the appeal is
heat-ti a party applies to adduce fresh evidence,
buL*”wl1e11 on examining the evidence as it
:-stanue, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes
V» * appansllt.”
(18) As the Privy _Council proceeded to point
out:
“IL may well be that the defect may be
pointed out by a party, or that a party may move
Lhe Court to supply the defect, but the
\
L
/\
1’equi1\e111e11l. must be the 1’equi1’en1enL.__e!’ * V.
Court. upon its appreciation of the evidence’ .it*-1 ‘ _
stands.” v ‘
Hence, the contention p:t1pLft1e’1:*LiiV by
Counsel for the 1’espo11de11Le.:V4’l-gas Lo of
by the appellant , nmtu order passed
by this Court, be received on
1’eeo1’d as Lhere is no dispute
ammpuxe gd:ii¢i1a:¢:iLyiogmuicustody of the said polit:__v_, Lhe
p_ _’1§._g_fi;rd_ing Point ii9o.2 and 3:
‘ I” E?.i’1″sL:v’peLi_Lio11c:1’i11 the Tribunal has deposed as PW 1
axiasms that the 211*’ and 3″! petitioners are her
1ni1io1.’;ud_:1ds_g11Le1’s, that. her husband was aged about 33
;.;ea%;&=s at the Lune his dean, \.=vs.-..: eaxnizag …s.5,()Q0
~ Lo
‘5’.-
11.!
‘:2s.6,000/’– per month and was spending upio Rs.4,0i’1 ; –
for their 111a:i11i.enanee. Tliere is no dispute that the
\\
..il,is aphblic selvice vehicle, engaged as a couducicr cl’ ui –
g..-
I—
deceased was a cleaner of the bus, which was”:§i”-fiiiblic
service vehicle.
8. C111.-l.pl._1′ XI of the Act. covefs L:i.1e”‘sL1hjecL V’i1..:lt3-‘E.l._l.i7§.:_1VaILi’:’.l’§3§3
of Ivioior ‘sfeiiicles “–Tl|;::i1’s1 -3.-;..__*I,.y’ Sectioizsl
146(1) provides that 1;o._pe1’soiI -use H’ii’1~’Oi.’.”i; vehicle in
public, unless there is a:.’vali¢l’~i11smu11ce which
complies -with ‘ 1*ei–,1uii’ei.§1e1.1i;s”_:ofVV “tile ‘ chapter. Section
147 1s:sa.1it.ia.Le_s*_Llie’ “–1edj;1ji1eune;1£s of policies and 1i1uiLs of
iiahiliiy. Ii.i’~_'”‘;he i.is1..-e1’ sliefl not be
(‘.1
requiied, to covei’A:_ijVi1_le’–.liabiiiLy in Iespeci. U1 ueaili,
outj.-o.fLa11(l’ ii1’Lhe of eluploymellt other than a
l’ ” 1i:§ti;:ilil§’ ai’isi11g Liiide1′ the Wo1’kme11’s Clompeiisalioii Act,
199.3 {em 192:3},
“L1 iespect of the death of or bodily injury
£o”,~..a11_y smell einpioyee eiigaged driviiig 1.1;… vehicle or if
vehicle or in tixalllillillg t.ickeLs of the vehicle or if it is 3.
“goals caniage goods being carried in the vehicle or to
cover ccn*.1′.a=.cLu..1 Ila-.1._Ii1’_,.y.
-.sn’b1., -.,I..ipi.._ Cs)’-;=..,_
1…1.: n,1.1i,,, ,
11C-1U E115 IUIIUWSI
ag:?::..M.:1e-.1:-L” in cover ul.lis1′ smplsysss,
°1111~:1erx the prsviso to s. 147(1)(b), it is clear
“10. The appt>i’ia11L’sV”i31’s’i Sub1i!iS§i0Il:§
was Lhat Shashi Bi11,;’shs_n “,w’.*~,-‘.~.*.=. “5-g
passcngtzr. The appcilaiiilfs .sub1i1i$si(>n ighal.
the phrases ‘aiiy? .pcrsQr1″‘ aiici passsiiger”
in Cls. (I) and (ii-) ¢..l’ sub:-sscLi01i”‘{ib) to S. 147
(1) are of wide amplituti-sjis CQ1T6Cf.’v__ (See New
I1ir.1i.a. Assu1_°a11c::VACm1i}>a11_\g ‘S;r-gpai’ Sing}: slid
others, 2000 (ii) SQC -.2′.;.’?«._ However, the
p1’ovisg;i.05;’s’ii,,’_i1t:. “siii:-s<:_c:i.io1'1 Ciiivcs out an
cxcept1'oz_1~–.iir'1"rcspsc1:"'-Inf"one class of persons
and pa.sse;::_;1gt:1s,"~ iiaiiasiy, fsliiployccs of the
iT.1S'J.I"':1d,Ijin'iI:éfl'l€F E%?0rd.'?L;"Vfi the "person" or
"}Jasss1igi:i:'".. fl1'£_f}1!_l],2l(Jy¢3t3, than the insurer
is"–requi1'ed"Vi;iz1dsr'-iifis statute to cover oniy
ce1'l3ai11ii cifisplcyess; As stated earlier, this
_would" allow the insured to enter into an
but
iiial; ~fO1'~. the purposes of 3. 146(1), a policy
~ iiQt_}. be 1'equirt:d to cover liability in
'–..Vi'1es}.tt:<;L'*¢;JI' the death arising out of and in the
lawn.
CO}JJ,’S€:.– of any smployrnsiit. of t..u\.« “arson
iiisulhtid unless; first; the liability of the
AA Compsiisation Act, 1923 and sccund.
‘WorkInen’s
II’ the
insunsci arises under the
_A’.-’employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and
LI’! llilillsu-I
I I
‘F 1′ uugaguxl 33
1.1. .l’.I.« is 9. public ssivics vehicle, is
conductor of the vehicle or in examining
tickets on the vehicle. if Liic C0l1Ct:’I’11t!d
ciiiployee is I1t’3il11(’31’a driver nor cund uulor nor
examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim
that the *~’*-*-“Wes WOLi1’u1.€.3GIii6 ui’ds1′
I I 5.1,;
LrI.l.I PIG’ L11′:
i\
V/,.
I» -I- JCILEJ
, i.lUL:l,C-TlI1g~ uypcuw 1:.
desc1’ipLio11 of “any person” or “paese11ge.1′.’_’_.4′ » ll’ L. V
this were permissible, ‘then there wotlldibe ‘V’
need to make special p1’oviesio11s for empleyejes
of the insured. The mere mention (if thee’x;voi”d
“cleaner” while descrll.-izlg the aseaéizlg siapaelly ” ‘ M
of the vehicle does not that the Cleaner ”
was l11e1efu1’e a passe1;ge1’. Besides Li.:e.ciaiu1″‘.
of the deceased emgzlpjree was adjludieate.
upon by the Wo1’k111e1l’S* .Co111pe1i:sal.ie1i Ceufl.
which could have assumed j-~1.n*ied.ieriQn_.JsI.nd
passed an o1flez’.__(liI’ec:li11:g Vl’t:e;z;V})c:1%1:saLio11 only
on the basis that’ t’héi* ;deCeaseti, was an
employee. VThis Q1’d_e:.’_ca11:lol;”now’ jlre enfowed
on the basis ;;tl1atj.: the…l”–deee’a3ed was a
3 ””.I ~ –
yaee-e:1gei’.;,~ V . –A L’
‘”IV’l1e_l_1:-.-.111 l’1’a111ed issue No.3 with
reganl ll Le . llle. «V the peliliollers to claim
eu1;1_;pe1s5alio11, ..l_1ew Illtlllll and frum whom, still by me1’el__y
…¢ . ..” ……-…..I’l.u..l gm.”
.1 4. .3″
u Laauu
to be liable to indelmlify the 1″
1’ee.p4J11¢le11{;/ owner of Lhe bus. The Tribunal llae not
euneidezed the admitted l’acL that Lhe deceased was 2:1
eleeile1′, lllere was no statutory eovemge for a cleaner and
“L. .-r .1…..’…:….. ..
111 vlcw U1 the use; ‘.lU11 u
i’ the H”1i’bl’* Si_i”I”\’.”Iiifi (leurl. in
Ramasllray Singh (supra), the appellant
liable to pay the compellsation £iIl10UI1LaW.ElI;tl£ltl’lly lit} T’
10. ‘Tile deceased was a elea11e1’and’11ot bei11gV”al’ ti1*3′:\fe1′ or’
a conductor’ or exalniner of’ the’. could
not 111ai11tai11 any appellalltfalltl hence
the ‘I’rlbunal is got liability on the
relying /2004 disposed of on
5.01.’lt)O6 tl1.isWC’,ou1~t has held that, if the
t.e1’ms and unambiguous, despite
eolleCtio11 of a..leslse1’V’p1’e1niLu11, the liabflity of the l1.lSuI'(‘Jl’
“er the clear terms of the “e'”‘~
amount. of premiullt collected. Learned
Cottzlsellfoil the olaimallts/1’esponde11t.s 3 to 7 contended
that, the appellant has collected Rs.30/ — as premium
“tolwa1’ds employee 1 and 2 and hence the decision in the
‘ease (3’ll.i’;(l at ‘
award .ll:tSl.t3I1l1Ig the liability on the appellant, as
j
K
sustainable. We do not find any Inerit in L11(‘;’.._(_§4().1vVii.i:4.41″‘Vlii.i’t’Ii1,
considcrilig the fact that then: is no slal.L1l.oi*y..’Vco9s14agc
a .21.-mm}. I…!;’.’£’.’.l¢£. £3L:.g1.. -JI_..1g- .. – ~.:-.it.i 11…’. 11-31..
that two additioliai wo1’iux1c;.1_a1*c covc:1*c(i co:1ii’ai’;tuéiii
liability and hence liability
in the special U0vc1’agt:;”t§l’ thus the
Insurer was lialoic to per the tcmis of
Wo1’l.4.1ucz1’s ” the -sc.c …1-.1
ci1’cwnstaiiccs_” a cicai’ admission that
the iii public St:l’Vi(Jt3 vehicle and
since tiiclfc is ‘not cove;-ggc for a clcancif and as
tlicijc was olsoiio contractual liability l.ll1(it:I’l.a.kt3I1 by the
xitiostioiii;~v.Li1cjdccisio11 has no application.
* 4_ For the l’o1’cgoi11g discussion and reasons, the
is allowed. Consequently the judgment. and award
a1IJ|;1|u
1 I1 ° ‘
gauxal. uifi -Hliant only, is hablc to be set asuis
F
and is acco1’di11g]y hczrc-by set aside. The amount if any
I
\,
.4/«’
deposited by the apptillalli. is hereby
1′(‘)fl.l1ldt’3d to it. In the facts and c’i1cLu11asi1a11(.'(£:es;of_’Lli{‘: Case, V’
-I
pa-u’Li..,s …;c «.ilrr.:.r.:p_..i J. L_.__r 1.11-11′ ::*<:.:p£:'c!,ivc uus1,s.._ _ ' "