Judgment:
D.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. The short question that arises for consideration in these Letters Patent Appeals is whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that liability of the insurer is limited to the compensation payable under Section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (W. C. Act for short) and the balance amount of compensation is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.
2. The factual backdrop of the case necessary for determination of the quest ion may be stated thus: The appellant's vehicle (truck) bearing registration number OSS 5202 which was insured with the Respondent.,No. I National Insurance Company Limited was involved in an accident on 25-12-8,4. In the said accident, one collie of the truck died and four coolies sustained injuries, one of the injured suffered permanent disablement. On the applications filed by the injured persons and heirs/dependants of the deceased, Misc. (A) Case Nos. 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 of 1985 were registered before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (Northern Division), Sambalpur. The appellant as owner of the vehicle and Respondent No. I as its insurer were cited as opposite parties in all the cases. By a common judgment passed on 18-3-1986 the Tribunal disposed of all the cases awarding compensation in favour of the claimants/petitioners.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal, the claimants/petitioners filed five appeals i.e. Misc. Appeals Nos. 140/86 to 144/86, in this Court. The said appeals were disposed of by a common judgment rendered on 30-4-91 in which the learned single Judge held inter alia that each of the injured claimants was entitled to Rs. 2500/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of application i.e. 22-2-1985 till payment. Regarding the claim of Buda Munda (appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 142/86) who suffered permanent disablement, he maintained the quantification of compensation made by the tribunal (Rs. 27,000/-) but held that insurer would be liable to pay Rs. 24,000/- in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the W. C. Act and the rest of the amount shall be-payable by the owner. Similarly in Misc. Appeal No. 144/86 filed by Mst. Thumri Munda heir/dependant of the deceased Bhado Munda, the liability of the insurer was restricted to Rs, 20,000/- and the balance compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal was directed to be. paid, by the owner. The appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge in the aforementioned, two cases in these Letters Patent Appeals.
3. The contention of the appellant shortly stated is that the findings of the learned single Judge restricting the liability of insurer is erroneous in as much as the Insurance Company had neither produced the insurance policy nor any other materials to show that its liability was restricted to the compensation payable under W.C.'Act. It is the further contention of the appellant that copy of the insurance policy produced by him which was marked as Ext. A shows that liability of insurer is not restricted to the extent as noted above.
4. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 lays down the requirements of policies and limits of liability. The proviso to Section 95(1 )(b) reads:
'Provided that a policy shall not be required--
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employees of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee--
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets in the vehicle or
(c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle, or
(ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover fiability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises, or
(iii) to cover any contractual liability.
Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.'
5. On a plain reading of the aforementioned provision, it is clear that the Statute does not mandate that insurance policy should cover the liability for compensation beyond that payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act in case of an employee of a goods vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that any liability beyond the statutory requirement was undertaken by the Insurance Company contractually, it has to be held that its liability is limited to the extent of compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the decision of the learned single Judge that out of the compensation amount, the Insurance Company would bear the liability to the extent provided under the W.C. Act and the balance amount is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. The calculation of the amount payable to the claimants under Section 4(1)(b) of Workmen's Compensation Act was not challenged before us. There is, therefore no merit in 'these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There will be however no order for cost.
S.K. Mohanty, J.
6. I agree.