- (1.) This civil misc. appeal was filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the Commissioner (WC) Jhunjhunu in case No.WCC 6/2002 titled as Anil Kumar Vs. Permanand & Ors. whereby an award for Rs. 2,45,940/- was passed in favour of claimant-Respondent No.1.
(2.) I have heard arguments of both the parties. Appellant, during the course of arguments has raised main controversies as follows:- (1) It has been argued that the Insurance Company was not liable for compensation of the worker who was working on thresher. It has also argued by the Insurance Company that it had charged premium only for driver. It has further been argued by the Insurance Company that the tractor was insured for agriculture but it was being used in running thresher and so because of the breach of policy, the Insurance Company should not have been asked to pay the compensation to the injured. In this regard, I have perused the papers. A thresher independently, or as per the definition given in the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, cannot be registered or insured separately. In National Insurance Company Vs. Meera,2010 RAR 350 it has been held that the tractor includes equipments used for the purpose of propulsion and the thresher which was being propelled/operated by the tractor. It is also an equipments used for the purpose of propulsion by the tractor and his contemplated to be carried by the tractor. Thresher attached to a tractor does not require independent registration and insurance. In this case record shows that the premium was received by the appellant for one employee under the provisions of the Act, the amount was received only for the driver of the tractor and not for any other in the employee. To my view, the employee working on the tractor or on the thresher attached with the tractor is also covered in the policy, so the appellant of the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimaints. Thresher is certainly used only for agricultural purposed and so it cannot be said that the tractor was being used for commercial purposes and so it cannot be said that there was breach of policy conditions by the owner of the tractor. After perusal of the statements of witnesses Anil Sharma, Sheeshram, Shivlal, Parmanand and Mahaveer Prasad, the order passed by the commissioner appears to be perfectly justified and no legal or factual infirmity appears in the impugned award in this regard. My aforesaid view gets support from the following rulings also:- (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Lal & anr,2014 1 MACD 291 (2) United India Insurance Co. Vs. Rajendra & ors, 2010 1 TAC 47 (2)" whether the appellant can be directed to pay the enhanced rate of interest in default of payment of compensation which amounts to penalty in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Keshav Bahadur case".
(3.) In National Insurance Company Vs. Keshav Bahadur, 2004 2 SCC 370 it was held that Section 110 CC of the MV Act 1939 which corresponds to Section 171 of MV Act 1988 confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest but a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. The stipulation for higher rate on interest provided by the Tribunal was set aside by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by a coordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2356/2005 titled as National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. decided on 11.12.2014.;