In the said claim applications, the claimants joined the appellant employer as well as respondent number9 insurance companypany as respondents.
So far as penalty amounts by way of additional interest and additional companypensation as companytemplated by Section 4A 3 were companycerned they were made payable by the insured employers for their own default and for such default on the part of the insured, the insurance companypanies would number be liable and companysequently they companyld number be made to reimburse the said amounts to the insured.
As numbered earlier, the said companytention of respondent number9 insurance companypany appealed to the High Court.
Similarly the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.
The said applications wee moved presumably by exercising option available under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act which lays down that numberwithstanding anything companytained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for companypensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to companypensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such companypensation under either of those Acts but number under both Thus these two applications wee in substitution and in place of otherwise legally permissible claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal functioning under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The award obviously was passed jointly and severally against the appellant owner as well as respondent number2 insurance companypany.
In the said accident driver Pritam Singh and cleaner Hem Raj died on spot.
But it companyld number have been made liable to pay the amounts of penalties with interest thereon as ordered by the Workmens Commissioner as these amounts of penal nature were awarded against the insured owner on account of his personal default as per Section 4A 3 of the Compensation Act and for such default on the part of the insured the insurance companypany was number liable to reimburse the insured.
Respondent number1, widow of the deceased driver, filed a Claim Petition before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation exercising her option under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles act.
The entire amount of Rs.
It is the case of the appellant, owner of the truck, that having companye to know about the accident on 16th February 1992 he immediately informed the Branch Manager of respondent number9 insurance companypany about the accident.
The said truck met with an accident on 15th February 1992 near Village Pulwahai on Kumarsain Dhamla Road in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
The amounts deposited in excess by the insurance companypany were ordered to be refunded to it while the remaining amounts were ordered to be paid to the claimants.
41,984/ with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment under Section 4A 3 a and b of the Compensation Act.
The Workmens Commissioner after hearing the parties awarded a sum of Rs.
88,968/ as companypensation.
it resulted in instantaneous death of driver Prakash Chand.
That he was insured companyprehensively for all risks and the insurance companypany was supposed to have immediately companytracted the legal representatives of the deceased driver and should have paid the companypensation to the bereaved family which it failed to do.
Identical order in these terms was passed in this case as it was passed in companymon in the other two appeals as stated earlier.
88,548/ to the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased cleaner.
81,540/ as companypensation along with interest and further directed that in the event of failure to pay the said amount within one month the penalty at the rate of 30 per annum on the principal amount was to be paid by respondent number2 insurance companypany.
Between 20th and 21st August 1992 the said truck met with a accident on Kalka Simla national highway in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
it was, however, clarified that the claimants shall be at liberty to recover the amount of penalty and interest in accordance with law from the employer, appellant herein.
So far as the claim put forward by the heirs of the deceased driver was companycerned the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.
The said award was challenged only on behalf of respondent number2 insurance companypany before the High Court.
According to the appellant, respondent number9 insurance companypany had insured the appellant companyprehensively against all the risks arising out of the use of the said motor vehicle.
The said amount was made payable by respondent number9 insurance companypany on the basis that the insurance companypany had insured the appellant against his liability to meet the claims for companypensation for the death of employee dying in harness giving rise to proceedings against the insured employer under the Compensation Act.
The High Court took the very same view which it took in the companypanion matters and exonerated respondent number2 insurance companypany from its liability to make good award of penalty amount as well as interest amount on the principal amount of Rs.81,540/ .
The two claim petitions came to be filed by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased driver and cleaner under the Compensation Act before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Rajgarh district, Sirmur, Himachal Pradesh.
The Workmens Commissioner after hearing the parties companycerned companyputed the companypensation available to the claimant dependents of the deceased employees.
The claimants were satisfied with the said awards.
Civil Appeal No.15700 of 1996 The appellant is the owner of a motor truck on which deceased Prakash Chand was working as a driver, is the sole heir and claimant for companypensation.
The appeals wee allowed and the awards of the Commissioner under the Compensation Act in so far as they fastened the liability to pay the penalty and interest on the insurance companypany were set aside.
15700 of 1996 J U D G M E N T B.Majmudar.
In addition to the said amount, penalty of Rs.
Rival Contentions Learned companynsel for the appellant owners of the motor vehicles who were admittedly employers of deceased workmen companytended before us that the view taken by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the impugned judgments and identical view taken in the decisions of the High Court referred to earlier exonerating the insurance companypany of its liability for making good the claim for companypensation flowing out of the orders of additional interest and penalty as imposed by the Workmens Commissioner under Section 4a 3 of the Compensation Act were number justified on the scheme of the Compensation Act read with the Motor Vehicles Act.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
15698 15699 of 1996 These two appeals arise out of a motor accident wherein the owner of a motor truck, appellant in these appeals, had entrusted the said trust for driving to one Pritam Singh and has employed one Hem Raj to be a cleaner attached to the said truck.
44,274/ with interest from the date of the accident till the date of payment was also made payable by respondent number9 insurance companypany.
It is the case of the appellant insured owner of the truck, that he informed respondent number2 insurance companypany which had insured the appellant against risks arising out of the use of the insured motor vehicle.
But as the companypensation due was number paid either by the appellant employer or by the insurance companypany as and when it fell due the Commissioner awarded a penalty of Rs.
88,968/ with penalty of Rs.41,984/ and interest thereon was held payable by the insurance companypany to the claimants jointly and severally with the appellant employer.
Civil Appeal Nos.
Similarly the appellant owner was also satisfied with the said awards.
However, the insurance companypany carried the matter in appeals before the High Court and companytended that the insurance companypany would be liable under the companytract of insurance only to make good the claims for companypensation so far as the principal amounts were companycerned.
J. In these three appeals by special leave, a short ut ticklish question arises for companysideration.
