PRAVEENBHAI S. KHAMBHAYATA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & Ors.

1.2 Considering the facts of the case, both the vehicles were parked in the same space and it can be D safely stated that the deceased cleaner was filling the water in the radiator of vehicle no.GJ-3U-5391 only on the direction of the employer and thus, the cleaner was working in the course of employment. The High Court E rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the insurance policy of vehicle No. GJ-3V-7785 was not produced but now since the appellant has produced the insurance policy which covers the vehicle involved in the accident which provides to indemnify the owner F of the vehicle in case of any accident caused to the workman limited to the extent of liability under Workmen's Compensation Act. [Para 11] (443-E-H]

1.3 Both the vehicles were insured with the first G respondent-insurance company and the owner being .one and the same and since the deceased being the cleaner and the claimants hailing from the lowest strata of society, in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it is appropriate to direct the first respondent-insurance company to indemnify the appellant for the death of deceased. [Para 12] [444-A-B] B

1.4 Having regard to the passage of time and in the interest of justice, statutory rate of penalty i.e. 15% is to be ordered in addition to the statutory interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum. The 1st respondent-insurance company shall pay the C amount of Rs. 3,25,365/- to the appellant which it has already deposited towards compensation. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 15 and 16] [446-C; 447-A-B]