NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GURUNATHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals are filed by the Insurance Company arising out of the common proceedings passed in WC(CR) No.730 to 735 of 2008 dated 21.10.2011, by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Commissioner' for brevity), saddling the burden on the Insurance Company for payment of compensation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The respondent No.1/claimants in all the appeals were working as hamalis and cleaners under the employment of respondent No.2-owner of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-34/2097, which is insured with appellant/Insurance Company and were travelling from Bengaluru to Ballary, after loading goods like cotton in the said lorry and along with the goods cotton were proceeding as a workmen and authorised representative of the said goods cotton, on 03.08.2008, then the said lorry was met with an accident with another lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-14/6857 and in the said accident, the respondent No.1/claimants in all the appeals have sustained injuries, followed by registration of crime in the police station and then for having sustained injuries in the said road traffic accident which was occurred arising out of and in the course of employment, have filed claim petitions under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act before the learned Commissioner, and the learned Commissioner after receiving the evidences on record and considering the same has awarded compensation of Rs.2,07,852/-, Rs.1,89,935/-, Rs.1,68,702/-, Rs.1,69,845/- and Rs.1,68,702/- to the respondent No.1/claimatns in their respective claim by saddling liability on the appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the above appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation by making indemnification on the second respondent for the reason that respondent No.1/claimants have travelled in the said lorry as a gratuitous passengers but not as workmen. Therefore, appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.