UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 19th July, 2007 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer District, Ajmer in Claim Case No. W.C.C./N.F./30/2005 whereby an award for Rs. 3,12,350 along with interest has been passed in favour of the claimant-respondent Shri Shankar Lal and against the appellant-Insurance Company.

(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the claimant-respondent Mr. Shankar Lal filed a claim petition on 17th June, 2005 against the appellant and respondent No. 2 Shri Vijay Kumar claiming compensation on account of loss suffered by him due to the injuries caused in an accident allegedly occurred on 1st April, 2005 when he was working under the instructions of respondent No. 2 Shri Vijay Kumar on a thresher which was attached with the tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-01-R-1411 and which at the time of alleged accident was being used to cut the crops in the field of Mangal Ram Koli. According to the claimant, when he was working on the thresher attached with the above tractor, his right hand came in touch with it and as a result of that he lost his right hand above elbow.

(3.) The appellant as well as respondent-Vijay Kumar filed their respective reply to the claim petition and it was averred by them that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondents. The appellant-Insurance Company also averred that the thresher in question is not a motor vehicle and it was neither registered nor insured with the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of alleged accident. It was further pleaded that by way of insurance policy only the risk of the driver of the tractor was covered under the provisions of the Act and as the claimant was not a driver of the said tractor and no premium was charged by the appellant to cover the risk of any other person including the claimant, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.