However, the learned Commissioner held that the appellant and respondent No.5 being the owner of the vehicle, were jointly and severally liable to pay the companypensation of Rs.3,25,365/ along with 10 penalty and annual interest at the rate of 6.
On the fateful day of 20.05.2002, deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav was working as a cleaner in the vehicle bearing No.
Both the vehicles were insured with the first respondent insurance companypany and the owner being one and the same and since the deceased being the cleaner and the claimants hailing from the lowest strata of society, in our companysidered view, in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it is appropriate to direct the first respondent insurance companypany to indemnify the appellant for the death of deceased.
The brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows Proforma respondents 2 4/claimants, namely, Lalmani Yadav father, Dashmiya Lalmani yadav mother and Janaki alias Babli Ramesh Yadav wife of the deceased, Ramesh Lalmani Yadav filed a claim petition before Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Labour Court, Rajkot, claiming companypensation for the death of deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav on 20.05.2002 in the companyrse of his employment.
GJ 3V 7785 in which it was mentioned that on the fateful day while reversing the said vehicle he saw deceased putting water in the radiator of another vehicle bearing number GJ 3U 5391 and that he slipped on the bonnet of vehicle, fell on his head and deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav sustained injuries and died.
Stating that Ramesh Lalmani Yadav died in the companyrse of his employment, respondents No.2 to 4 filed the claim petition claiming companypensation of Rs.4,15,093/ and that appellant and respondent No.5 Insurance Company are liable to pay the companypensation of Rs.4,15,093/ .
Insofar as vehicle dumper No.
the first respondent United India Insurance companypany and while so, the companyrts below are number justified in holding that the first respondent insurance companypany is number liable to indemnify the appellant.
Being aggrieved, the appellant owner of the vehicle preferred the first appeal in the High Court of Gujarat.
Before the Commissioner, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence.
GJ 3U 5391.
GJ 3U 5391 and met with an accident and died due to the injuries sustained by him.
GJ 3V 7785 was number involved in the accident and that only vehicle No.
GJ 3V 7785, the insurance companypany is number liable to indemnify the appellant for the accident caused by the vehicle bearing No.
As companytended by the appellant, both the vehicles were insured with the respondent insurance companypany and both the vehicles are one and the same.
The same is substantiated by the panchnama of the scene of the accident.
Upon companysideration of the records, the Commissioner held that FIR dated 20.05.2002 was lodged by the driver of the vehicle bearing No.
GJ 3V 7785, in the employment of the appellant and respondent No.5.
GJ 3U 5391 owned by him.
GJ 3V 7785 and died during the companyrse of the employment and as such, the fact that he was employed in another vehicle cannot exonerate the insurance companypany from indemnifying the appellant.
Onbehalf of the appellant, an argument was advanced that since both the vehicles were insured with the same insurance companypany viz.,
United India Insurance Company and since Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the insurance companypany ought to have been held liable to indemnify the insured.
Taking into companysideration the facts of the case, it is evident that vehicle GJ 3V 7785 was number involved in the accident.
Considering the facts of the case, both the vehicles were parked in the same space and it can be safely stated that the deceased cleaner was filling the water in the radiator of vehicle numberGJ 3U 5391 only on the direction of the employer and thus the cleaner was working in the companyrse of employment.
GJ 3U 5391 was involved and since the deceased was employed as a cleaner was only in vehicle No.
It was submitted that the deceased was an employee of the appellant in vehicle No.
Vide order dated 16.04.2014, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant observing that since vehicle No.
GJ 3U 5391, admittedly deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav was number an employee and he was only a third party.
GJ 3U 5391 had a valid insurance policy, whether the first respondent insurance companypany is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for death of a person who was employed by him in another vehicle.
The point falling for companysideration is that even if the vehicle No.
In this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the said judgment.
From the written statement filed by fifth respondent Viraj Krishna Techtonics Pvt.
In the afternoon at about 12.30 p.m., deceased was filling water in the radiator of the vehicle when suddenly the bonnet of the vehicle fell down on the head of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and died.
Learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that both the vehicles, namely, GJ 3V 7785 and GJ 3U 5391 were duly owned by the appellant and both the vehicles were insured with the same insurance companypany viz.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing the appellants First Appeal No.282 of 2014 observing that the Insurance Company was number liable to indemnify him, thereby companyfirming the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Labour Court, Rajkot.
