BETWEEN :
MFA 2722 .- '
1.
_ ANQ "
1;
IN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAQ; " .
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBAi?{3A, _
DATED THIS THE 12:11 DA? o9f_:1§iA.Ié.{j.';3A - Am)
- ., I)l.}NDAIE'PA JAGADEVAPPA BIRADAR
* _ "MA3QR "
_ .__R/G«¥iiT'i'1;NAHALLI
~ , i3fJAP{}£<T TALUK AND mgr
Sf~%:'~;&E'.UNTHALA W] O DUNDAPPA BZRADAR
MAJOR
V "P./Q HITTINAHALLI
' BIJAPUR TALUK AND Dis'?
K SEETHARAMAIAH
MAJOR
S] O NIZAMAIAH CON'}"RAC'I'OR
TOURISF HOTEL
.1/»
'7 ,0»/"
M G RQAD A ~
BIJAPUF? ...RESPQ1_\iDENT_:f3 ' '
{By M/3 Chetana Assts, Acimfor R. A A_ -. A
Sri Madam Mohan M Khannnr, Advifor
MFA $1130 ms. 30 OF+' T--HE xx.?;:::fAcr=AGA:N_sfr.%:'HE
JUDGEMENT 5:; ORDER £)ATL«i§:'=. ;3.1:z;2o01'.=PAvssED {N
WCA/SR/191 012' 1999 on T__HEa_F¥L_E OF""T'HEf{.ABOUR
OFFICER 82:. c<)1~.ri'ise;.1$S1:JI2 DESTRICT.
K"$F}E*rHARAMAiAH MAJOR
A' ' S] (}.NEZAMAIAH, CONTRACTOR,
V' 'i.'OURIS'1'HOTE,:L,M.G.ROAD,
' HBIJAPUR. RESPONDENTS
” “(By Sri Asholc N Patii, A<:1v.for R.1,
" Sri. Marian Mohan M Khannur, Aciv.for R2 )
'ifs
:\– ,. ;
>4
M K
MFA FILED (US. 30 0? ma W13. ACT A<.:;?AzNsT"'m'E–J
JUSGEMENT 85 (312932 DATED: 13.12.2€}(l3g '§?A;€3SE{) m
WCA/SR/88/1999 cm Tm; FILE OI%'~'"I'ErJ.E3 usaogm OF'E"!_{1ER..
5:. commxssxozvm rvore WORKMEWS' j1.Cm;1PENsAqi1o;;,.'
BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING *rH.r§: c:,,A1M P5:'2.f1*:r~:’
CGMPENSATYON.
THESE APPEALS commié’ FOR }~§:.ARiNG?fgTH1s
my, THE comm’ QELNEREI3,/r–;~z.§;–.nG%L_Low:Na;
' Juuc,m:>r Both ef the vehicle chaflcngmgv awand passed by the
Com111iss:ioi1_er ._ ‘ Conipensation, Bijapnr, in
WCA:SR/ 19i ?&Z’t$3T and 13. 12.2001.
2. gisixzce tfie as well as the Ivespondcnts in
com “” “men and commcm judmcnt and
éhfijlfiflgfid, thtzrefore, both the appeais are
“tqken £(3ge’i:}1;}é<%;",ATi11 older to avoid the repetifion of facts
.. -iaw for the convcxxience of the Court.
3,V ?f,30i11 the appeals are filed under Sec.30(1) of the
. V~V:f''''z5:i(:):f:'1{'J;l.i1it'31'1'S Compensation Act by the insurer challenging the
fastened on it by the Commissioner for Workmerfs
. Compcnsa£:ion and thereby {fimctacd to pay tbs compensation
/9;'":
to the respondents/claimants t0 the tune of
Rs..35,631/– together with i11tt:res{@m1b2°xE: p1ei~”sgr::;5:;,@”;’
4. Heard the arguII1ent§’».:’of::”‘le£fJ.r1ie«:i’
Nadaguouda for for-
respondent/claimants. None R2.
5. Admittedly, ii”;§”:1Ieh.i;:§.le§V.’ :’::g:1;r:n:.$’ti<;j11 belongs to R2
K.Sec£ha:tamaiahVs/0 and the
owner of they Bijapur. The
claixnants flicy are the parents of
aeceasgci w{iA;Si§:3s-99 is filttd by the
claim petitions came to be
filad, since fthc dvecc2:_se'd_ injured met with accident on 9-
yéhiigz wc}i'kiz2.g.«'undcr respo11dent~»2 as driver and
cifiaacr rgspécfivfily in tlactor bearing No.KA-28-4074. In the
driver of the vehicie succumbed $0 the
V . injufiés by him in the accficnt and the claimant
!A(§3A:vSR:88-99 sustajnetd gtitzvous injuries, therefore
jzaétifions came to be filed before the (Zbmmissioncr.
5. After considering the material evidence placed on
n ” “rt:Cor*<:I, the Commissioner far Workmcu's Compensation
,/U':
1,: _
fa$te:1ed the liability on the appe1iant–in$uz*er.. ‘– ‘
appellz-mt has come up with these _,ap;>c’alsj:!f.hr:_V u u
liability fastanccl on it.
7. it is argued by lcar:£cf:£}._coufii’scV:l
that the policy issued infavour fsézhicic in
question was a and trailer
should be used cmly as Wei} as for
forestry but other than for
agricultmaii fmm one place to
anothezxy fof_ Mini Tank. Themfom,
when tlgé u’wz;V1e:r V has violated the policy and
there, is 3 l$i13:,:§ch~ {if f:i1c«}::o:1t;ract between owner and the
. –i};1si1;t§ér,3.–_”‘the* not liable to indctmnify the owner.
« case, learned ccaunsci for the petitioner
Elatimzxtion cf the (301111 to the statement of {me
V._Vita}a “s3t°:Who3c inatance mm was set in motion in Crime
A ” ‘:’»’€.cV)V[S’z’,’~’§./’:39 for an Gffemte punishable under S<:cs.2?9, 304(3)
' IPC against the éeceasmd Shivagonda who was the driver
., 5;' the vehicle.
:1}
– – ‘
7’ 5
8. The appellant-i11sure:* has not
acciéent that took place on 9~7–1999.
between the parties is also not in riispiztc.
even net disputed the quantum of
the WI}. C<;)mmissione:r {pg '\(':'.a__im o111y
contention of the _is that… liability
fastened on it to pay incorrect and
illegal. The contents fiiev that extra
premium 9:'. SR8. the risk of a
érivcxj to cover the xisk of the
co<::lies ?:1§.t«. tlin iused other than for agricultural
pmpcses 'oi'-.foVxcsVtV1iy owner of the vehicle for which it
§V€J,$"":'iI}:Su17$d. £)'u;r;:1g the ccursf: of argummlts, learned
' respondentjclaimania submitted that the
cfxwfiér of Vfractor and trolley has obtained gcrmission to
1;1S€: 'L§;1t3 V8i1iC}£ oiher than agritrultuxal and forest }3llI'p0S8S
x V' ..E)Lii'…]30%l1Ch document are produced. The policy produced
appellant before the Ccmmissioner does not disclose
'"é.i1bsequently any extra pmmium was paid ta use the vehicle
other than the said purpose /far which it was insured.
'3" – ..
Therefore, even though the appciiant has cofiectsdx
premium. to cover the risk of the driver and Rs.__§?i5i«»~V_’
incmasod 3″ party damages, tho owner isfiot V.
use the vehicie for othor
Whenever such vohiok: was Vroquired” 10′ ‘be .other”;t}:1&.*1_”‘},
the purpose for which it wa§§’VL’o*j;;:.iAsu:cd,V” “§:}_1’on*v’:it ‘éhould {)6
brought to the notice cwfihe galooeit the issued
$3}? the concerned RTC) ‘ 111’ after paying
necessary ‘oéiso’– owner Wants the
iI1S1JI’éiI1(3″1″f’\’3!I)Afi.}’l:,’>1′.’;;g”(:::=§;”ltffliiit i1;§ta”‘n”‘i case, the owner of the
vehic}e;’A_u$g:d’ the~.’,V?chio1¢[‘o’–to’ sites}. from once: piace to
another, 1§éi;orev’}’ank was constructed and the
V. «_ Shivagondawas the tortfeasor on whose nogligence
‘ taken place, but he died and it was in the
H employment. The vehicle was used other
V «V for which it was insuneé. Therefore, the:
H K retgponfiiéntf owner of tractor and tcoiiey alone; is iiable to pay
“tj1ié’com;3onsatjon to the rcsponée11ts/ claimants.
9. Therefore the appeals fikzd by the appeiiantf insnzor
is allowed. The iiabiiity fixed on the appellant, by the
E I ,…w
§.’:.’:4-‘3′” ‘
Commissioner for Wcrrkmerfs Compcnsatitm. f 1:0′ pa}?
compensation in the aforesaid two claim pefI§:i_1;il€3:1$,’ l
modified. The I’€S§}O11d6Ilt”S€€fi’13i§;.€>llfEElaJo.h””*,
vehicle and the employer of the dééefiscfl
alone liable to satisfy the aW*airfl,p3.$.seci_linl _”thél”1.al:$élve iiwoll
appeals.
R&spondent–ownelrl lgff” …i§§-given 2 mcmths
time to deposfiil the with accrued
:’u1tcre$t, ‘
b}v«;Hth€ appellant in both the
appealfi’ “it.
I’ …..
JUDGE
brfi-.