High Court Kerala High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Baby George on 30 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Baby George on 30 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1725 of 2004()


1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BABY GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.C.SEBASTIAN, S/O.CHACKO,

3. THRESSIAMMA SEBASTIAN,

4. MERIN SEBASTIAN, D/O.V.C.SEBASTIAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VPK.PANICKER

                For Respondent  :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :30/10/2008

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                           HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                          M.A.C.A. No.1725 of 2004
               ....................................................................
                Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed challenging the award granting compensation of

Rs.1,63,000/- for the death of a 32 year old driver of a jeep which

capsized leading to his death. We have heard Standing Counsel

appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that

compensation cannot be claimed for the death of a driver under Section

163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we have in other cases taken the view

that the driver is covered, if not as an employee, but as a third party as

the insured is authorised to have the insured vehicle driven by a paid

employee. Even as an employee, compensation is payable under the

Workmen’s Compensation Act for the driver. Even though counsel for

the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation under the

Workmen’s Compensation Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act are

different, we do not think there is any scope for interference because in

2

absolute terms the compensation of Rs.1,63,000/- cannot be held to be

high. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

HARUN-UL-RASHID
Judge
pms