Beta Naphthol Limited Vs. Cegat

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........stay against recovery.2. a show cause notice was issued in this petition to the respondents and shri b.g. neema, the learned standing counsel for the union of india, appears on behalf of the respondents. shri a.m. mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in exercise of its jurisdiction to waive pre-deposit or not, the cegat has to act judiciously and cannot act arbitrarily. according to shri mathur the order of the cegat is completely arbitrary and betrays non-application of mind to the relevant circumstances of the case. shri neema refutes these submissions and submits that the normal procedure is to file an appeal before the cegat after depositing the amount demanded, which is under challenge.3. it is a discretion of the cegat whether to waive the condition of pre-deposit or not and to what extent it should be waived. we find that the cegat had granted three months' time for deposit and that order has been stayed by this court in the month of april, 1991. in the circumstances of the case, if we go into the merits of the case, disposal of the case would be delayed further. the ends of justice would be served if a direction is made to the cegat to dispose of the appeal before it within stipulated time. we, therefore, direct that the respondent no. 1 shell dispose of finally the appeal, in which the impugned order dated 10-1-1991 (annexure k to the petition) was passed, expeditiously. the condition of pre-deposit shall remain waived till the final disposal of the appeal by the cegat. the petitioners are directed to appear before the cegat to take notice of the date of hearing on 15-7-1991. the petitioners shall also submit to the cegat a certified copy of this order. it is expected that the appeal shall be disposed of as soon as possible preferably within a month from 15-7-1991.4. a certified copy of this order be given today on payment of usual charges.