LexGOITUMUKKALA APPALA NARASIMHA RAJU AND ORS. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GOITUMUKKALA APPALA NARASIMHA RAJU AND ORS. A + v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR · FEBRUARY 20, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Workmen's Compensation A.ct, .1923~ections 2(1)(n) and 19-Motor ' . . . . . ..._. Vehicles Act, 1988-:-Sections 143, 147: and 167-Motor Vehicle Accident- Resulting in death-Vehicle ,belonging to wife driven by husband- c Compensation-Entitlement of-Liability of insurer under 1923 Act-Held: Contract of employment between husband and wife not proved-Purpose for which vehicle used not disclosed and also qs to how accident took place- If the deceased with all intent and purport was the owner of the vehicle, claim petition under 1988 Act and 1923Act not maintainable-Only because ss 143 and 167of1988 Act refer to the pr_ovisions of 1923 Act, it does not D mean that the. provisions of 1988 Act, proprio vigore would apply to compensation proceeding under 1923 Act-Decision of High Court that no ~ Award could be passed against insurer in the proceedings under the 1923 ,. Act, upheld though for different reasons. " ._A· tractor belonging to G, wife of deceased was insured with the E respondent no. 1. Deceased met with an accident while driving the said tractor and djed. It is alleged that G and her husband .were living separately prior to the acci!lent and G's brother had_engaged his brother-in-law- G's husband. Petition was filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to claim compensation against the owner of the tractor and the insurer, Commissioner F 1 for Workmen's Compensation awarded compensation against the appellant ,) and the respondent Appeal was filed. High Court allowed the appeal by holding that no Award could be passed against the insurer in the proceedings under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Hence the present appeal G Appellants contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants had an option to file an ,.i ..i application either under the 1988 Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and, thus, an Award could be made also against the insurer. 939 H • --f-- 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A "workman" within the meaning of the provisions of the + Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 would be entitled to maintain an applirJition for payment of compen5atioo if, for a personal injury caused to - him hy accident arising out of or in case of his employment in wbich the \.--- I B employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter X. Chapter X of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is made applicable t- I- in relation to a claim which could have also been made under Section 3 or the I I923Act. But, having regard to the fact that Section 14f:lofChapterX makes a special provision, the same shall apply only to cases arising under the said }-- c Chapter and not under Chapter XI of the 1988 Act. !Para 14) (945-C-DJ 2. The 1988 Act provides for mandatory insurance for the matters laid down under section 147 of the Act, thus, an Award can be passed against an insurer. An insurer, having regard to sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act, would ordinarily, have limited defence as provided for. The defence of an D insurer in a proceeding under the 1923 Act wouid be unlimited and all the defences which are available to the employer would be available to it. (Para 151 (945-D-El 1 3. Section 143 of the 1988 Act has a limited applicability so far as the provisions of the 1923 Act are concerned. Where a liability arises despite -r E the fact that accident might have taken place without any fault of the driver of the: vehicle and others under control thereof, the insurer may have a liability, whereas under 1923 Act a "workman" would be entitled to compensation, even if no negligence is proved against the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle; but the,appficability of Section 143 of the 1988 Act, therefore, cannot F be' extended to one made under Chapter XI thereot [n a case orthis nature, provision of Section 167 of the 1988 Act would be ofno significance. t- (Para 16) (945-F-G) '- - 4. It is wholly absurd to suggest that the husband would be a "workman" of his wife in absence of any specific contract. There is no doubt that for the G purpose of proceeding under the 1923 Act, only the appellants have concocted the story of hus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.