P. Sathasivam, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I, Chennai dated 16.12.1994 made in W.C. No. 184 of 1992, wherein the Commissioner has directed the appellant - Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 70, 838/- as compensation in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein - applicants before the said authority.
2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the Deputy Commissioner.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the applicants before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who are the parents of late Pradeep Kumar, who was employed as a worker with first opposite party before the said authority and the third respondent herein. According to the applicants, on 12.07.1991, the first opposite party instructed his employee, namely A. Ponnambalam, Mathivanan, Mohan Kumar and Pradeep Kumar to purchase steel plate and iron pipes from Agro India Limited and transport the same to the factory of the first opposite party at Guindy by hiring a goods vehicle. As directed, the aforesaid employees engaged a lorry bearing registration No. MDU 9170 belonging to the second opposite party - 4th respondent herein, which was insured with the third opposite party - appellant herein, for transporting the steel plates and iron pipes. The employees were travelling in the said lorry along with the goods. It is further seen that while proceeding from East to West, on Chamiers Road, the driver suddenly applied the brake on noticing the red signal at the traffic point, as a result of which the steel sheets had moved forward and pierced through the body of Pradeep Kumar, resulting in his instantaneous death. Since the death occurred as a result of an accident in the course of his employment with the first opposite party, they prayed for a compensation of Rs. 71, 680/-. They also impleaded the owner of the lorry as well as its insurer. All the three parties have filed a counter statement before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, on appreciation of materials placed before him, after holding that the deceased Pradeep Kumar died in the course of his employment, passed an order directing the third opposite party - Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 70, 838/-. Questioning the said order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
4. After taking us through the application filed by the applicants, counter statements, order of the Deputy Commissioner, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company would contend that in the light of Ex. R. 2- i.e., the Insurance Policy was taken only after the accident, the Insurance Company is no way liable to pay compensation amount. In support of the said contention, he relied on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai reported in .
5. Since the above said contention is the only contention, let us consider the details regarding the date of accident and Ex.R. 2. There is no dispute that the accident had occurred on 12.07.1991 at 3.00 p.m. In the policy - Ex.R. 2, it is specifically stated that the policy comes into effect from 7.00 p.m. on 12.07.1991. Though the Deputy Commissioner relying on the earlier decisions has concluded that irrespective of the fact that the policy was taken on 7.00 p.m., directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner. In the said decision, their Lordships after considering various earlier decisions held that,
'6. The correctness and applicability of the judgment in Rani Dayal's case, came up for consideration before this court subsequently in a number of cases. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi, , a three-Judge Bench of this court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, wherein it had been held that if there is a special contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought, the insurance policy would be operative from that time and not from the previous midnight as was the case in Ram Dayal (supra) where no time from which the insurance policy was to become effective had been mentioned. It was held that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following, but, in cases where there is a mention of the specific time for the purchase of the policy, then a special contract comes into being and the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note of the policy itself. The judgment in Jikubhai's case (supra) has been subsequently followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, by a three-Judge Bench of this court also. '
6. We have already referred to the fact that in Ex.R. 2 - Insurance Policy, it is specifically mentioned that the policy shall come into effect on 12.07.1991 from 7.15 p.m. onwards. In such a circumstance, in the light of the specific reference to the time, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision, we hold that as per the Insurance Policy - Ex.R. 2, the coverage would be operative from that time i.e., 7.15. p.m. and not from the previous midnight as observed and stated in earlier decisions. Accordingly, the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with liability as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the contrary conclusion arrived at by him directing the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for applicants / respondents 1 and 2 herein would contend that in that event respondents 3 and 4, namely employer and lorry owner may be directed to pay the said compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee under the first opposite party - third respondent herein. We are concerned with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. As per the definition of an employer, the first opposite party - third respondent herein alone is liable to pay the compensation in respect of the injuries suffered / sustained by his employees arising in the course of their employment. Though the employees of the first opposite party procured with the lorry belonging to the second opposite party, in the light of the above discussion and the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, we cannot direct the second opposite party to pay the said amount. Accordingly, we hold that the first opposite party - third respondent herein, namely the employer alone is liable to deposit the compensation arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner. Inasmuch as there is no quarrel with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the Commissioner, it is unnecessary for us to consider the same.
Net result, the appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above, . No costs. Consequently, connected CMP., is closed.
The learned counsel for the appellant states that at the time of filing of the appeal they have deposited the entire compensation as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. In the light of our above conclusion, the appellant - Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by them. The first opposite party - third respondent herein is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Commissioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to approach the Deputy Commissioner for realisation of the amount.