1
IN THE HIGH COU'R'{' OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'THE 24*?' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2099
BEFORE
THE I~ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE S{IBI{ASI;I:.:E'1':&i1)TI*-- .
M.F.A. No. 5979 ofzops [WC] C75; L *
BETWEEN I
1
THE NEW INDLA ASSU_RA,NCECO ETI1
NO A0 LAKSHM1 COMPLEX. ‘
OPP VANIVILAS HoSPr1_’AL.,_
K G ROAD FORTBANGALORE ”
BRANCH OFFICE ‘AI'{.I1\z;-ZKUR . .1
SHOPPING COMPLEX ‘rU:viKLIR- A
REP BY 1’rSVSRD””*iSjIONAL_ ] .1 ‘”‘
MANAGER AT DO X111’ PEENY-A_
:3ANG2ALOE§_;:_5S0G:5S”
. 1:. …APPELLANT
[BY SR1. A K )
MAHADEVAPPA
‘” A. :v£A;;.OR BY AGE
~ vINjAj{A_’E’A BUS SERVICE
5TH ROAD
S:DO”AGANGA EXTENSEON
” ‘V”I’_U’1\/EKUR– 572 101
ADILAXMI
‘ AGED 39 YEARS
W/O RAMANJINAPPA
R/O BRAMASANDRA
B PALYA HOBLI
GOWRIBIDNUR TQ
KOLAR DIS11561208
RESPOND~ENTS’ , ”
[BY SR1. GVDAYANANDA, ADV. FOR R1 _ V. ‘
SR1. PATEL D. KARECOwDA.-ADv. FOR R2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OFWC. ACT AGAiNs’I?
THE JUDGMENT DATED 31}..03;20’08’ie»._PASSED, “*I.I_\I
WCA/FC/CR–115/2007 ON ,T”E~IE FILE OF LAB4O’UR’–,
OFFICER AND COIvIMI:3s’IONER*- E-‘OR._
COMPENSATION, TUMKUR, DEST’P_EC’T,. “TUMKUR.
AWARDING A COMPENSATION’~Of?__RS.3,*36V,O0VC}/- WITH
INTEREST@ 12% RA.” ” ” ”
THIS MFA C0MIN’0I._ :EOR0″eAAE’AI:)fMIssION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVE’BI$D.’:T_HE. FOLLOWING:
..,fOp,«finDafiENT IIII
v’:i’.his’: the insurer questioning the
liability in’—respect of ‘the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Q01.1}”i3¢?1;§»sii_tionA’,V”‘Tumkur, dated 31.03.2008. The 2″
‘-the mother of the deceased. She flied a
seeking Compensation for the death of her
son, who was working as a Cieaner in the bus bearing
regi’g’tratiOn No. KA.06.B.1i88, in the accident that
occurred on 06.06.2007’.
3
2) It is alleged that, when the deceased was
opened the door of the bus to alight from the but’s;”.tdue
to two electric wires feil on the roof of on
account of heavy rain fall, he electrocuted
succumbed to the same.
3) Before the Col:-*h13:1_issio13_er, Vt}i§~ly’§ai.idVVV
petition was contested by____the_ irisurer.c_’_Thef% insured
though served, has remained
4) The irlsurer’; cfontestedllthe matter, has
Contef1ded’iri.cleaner is not entitled for
compe1’isation* Vunder”–the.«provisions of the Workrnen’s
Col-npensat’ion Section 147′ of the Motor
. it Ve’hicies statutoirily fixes the liability on the insurer
of the driver of the vehicle and in case of
a ‘public’ service Vehicle, the risk of the conductor or the
.ticket”e§<a1niner is only covered. as such. there is a
ldstattltory liability on the insurer. In View of the
" ~-'provisions of Section £47. in case of the Private
cleaner.
conductor and/or cleaner, as such, it is the driver and
the Conductor, who can only be compensated. .«_’
7) On the other hand, lea.tr:n_eduV::–c0u11se’l..
appearing for the claimant sub_mitt.ed.
discloses collection of extra’ premiiirnof
employees. The ‘two but, it
only mentions as ’em.p:[‘oye:es’;;_p: any employee
succumbed to injuries he
was entitleditol employer vis–a–
vis for the appellant
submitteti’ it covers the risk of the
and in this case, the policy
disciloses that”there_is collection of extra premium of
d l§si:5G«,%’fQ’3;VlCoverage of extra employees apart from the
H The risk of the other employees
‘fbenefit, the extra premium is collected are
V’ xalsocoyered. Learned counsel for the insurer submits
that ll’/{T410 refers to only driver, conductor and not the
It is also not in dispute that 2 employees are
6
covered on the basis of the extra premium coflected by
the insurer. {M1140 refers to coiiection offextra
premium, necessarily shows the risk of the….Cieane_r.Vis
covered by the policy. No other provisionsatchftasp, a’1’3.y__ ‘
prohibitions for covering the
persons, is pointed out byrtiie learned couiisdeid £03: there.
insurer. In View of theV°x_sda:ne, E— that the
Commissioner has rightly awarded’compensation to the
claimant a.nd __fixed t = ‘the Insurance
:78) -_ ‘ _f:ar_>as_::th.e’rate of interest is concerned,
the Commissioner’.’h”a.sf;awarded interest at 12% pa.
one month:a_ft_er’ the date of accident tiii the date of
. jgjaflifiliiit.:’.,A.V’i’IQW€V€F, the Apex Court, in the judgment
aoog AIR saw 371 7 [ Oriental Insurance
Mohd. Nasir and Another] has ciarified
V’ held that the award of interest to be awarded at
‘A73’/’2ti/o from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tiii the
date of judgment and at 12% from the date of judgment
7
from the date of deposit or payment. in View of the
judgment of the Apex Court cited supra, the impugned
judgment is modified to the extent of rate ofVVin1_:’erest
awarded by the Commissioner. Accordiingiytjj__’:t1*1_e’ _
claimant is entitled for interest aptmf71/2% fi”o1n.::the”Vdate = 2
the petition till the date of judgment
the date ofjudgment til} thed-ate oifclepositii/C ”
against the rate __ of avi}a1’de_d Vvfiby the
Commissioner.
With theisboveiimodifiestiion the extent of
rate of_interest;.’this s_’ppe’a.i ‘stands disposed of.
_-The siniount deposited before this Court shall he
tré1nsfei’red..’ to the Commissioner for Workmens
A r. Co~mpensati on §.~~Tumkur.
Sci/*
JUDGE
d*aw.fisR*