D.V Shylendra Kumar, J.:— This appeal is by the insurance company disputing the liability fastened on it though it had issued two insurance policies to cover the risk of the owner of a vehicle which was a peculiar carrier on which was installed a drilling unit and the vehicle was being essentially used as a driller.
2. It appears that the insurance policy had provided coverage to the owner of the vehicle to cover claims put forth not only by the driver as an employee; but also had issued another insurance policy providing group insurance coverage in respect of the employees other than the drivers. The facts leading to the claim petition presented by the kith and kin of the deceased driver, who doubled up as the driver-cum-driller and while so working had met with his death due to an accident involving the driller vehicle and the claimants are the mother and younger brother of the deceased as dependants.
3. The appellant insurance company, which provided insurance policy coverage, disputed the liability fastened on it on the premise that the employee being a driver, the policy which had been issued to meet the requirements of section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act could have been pressed into service only if the vehicle was being driven by the employee and undisputedly the vehicle being stationary, when the accident occurred and only the driller machine was in operation; that policy was of no avail to the owner of the vehicle to meet the claim and it was contended before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the driver could not have worked as a driller without a valid drilling licence. But this stand failed before the Commissioner.
4. In the present appeal, while urging this ground Mr. Lingaraj, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks to set aside the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding a total compensation of Rs. 4,23,580 on this ground. Another ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the quantification of income of the employee at Rs. 4,000 is on the higher side in the absence of any cogent material and that it should not have been more than Rs. 3,000 per month.
5. Though the matter has come up for orders on the aspect of referring the matter to Lok Adalat, we have taken up the matter before the court instead of driving the parties to the Lok Adalat as we find that for resolution of a question of law, as contemplated under section 30 of the Act, the Lok Adalat is not necessarily a proper forum.
6. It is rather strange to note that the matter is referred to Lok Adalat, though Mr. H, S. Lingaraj, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, both submitted that neither of the parties, viz., the appellant or the respondents nor their counsel had made any request to refer the matter to Lok Adalat.
7. It appears it is only the voluntary act of the Registry, exercising suo motu power that has resulted in the matter being listed before the court for ‘referring the matter to Lok Adalat’.
8. We find Registry embarking on such an exercise is rather an extravagant act and uncalled for. The Registrar (Judicial) to look into such matters as, for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat, the learned counsel for the parties should have made a request to that effect. It is the primary duty of the Judges of this court to look into matters instead of referring the matters to Lok Adalat and even Registry should not indulge in impermissible or unauthorised acts. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to submit a report in this regard.
9. Insofar as the merits of the matter is concerned., we find neither grounds canvassed on behalf of the appellant insurance company are tenable. It is a matter of regret that the insurer who had provided the two policies covering the risk of the owner and to comprehensively take care of the risks of the insured, against the claim of an employee either as a driver or a driller, should now start disputing its liability to the detriment of the dependants of a deceased employee.
10. Even assuming that the deceased employee had doubled up as a driver as well as a driller, as fairly submitted by Mr. Lingaraj, learned counsel for the appellant, there is no impediment in law for the driver also being utilised by the employer for operating the driller. We have not heard nor are we apprised of any licence being issued by any authority to function as a driller. There is no material placed before the court to indicate that there was such a requirement in law.
11. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is on the higher side on the premise that the income of the deceased driver-cum-driller is also on the higher side and no supporting materia] is produced, is concerned, we take judicial notice of the fact that a person working as a driver-cum-driller cannot work for a salary less than Rs. 4,000 and if at all it had to be much more than that. The fact that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation having rightly taken the income of the deceased employee and the deductions calculated, even in the absence of any supporting material, the Commissioner has only done a right thing.
12. We do not find any merit at all in the present appeal and it is only a frivolous appeal and, therefore, dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000 on the appellant, which has to be deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation within four weeks from today. The amount in deposit before this court, if any, is directed to be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation forthwith and the Commissioner to disburse this amount in favour of the claimants at the earliest without waiting for any further orders.
13. Appeal dismissed with costs.