High Court Karnataka High Court

The Branch Manager United India … vs Neelamma W/O Channabasappa … on 4 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager United India … vs Neelamma W/O Channabasappa … on 4 September, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
MFA 1536/2005 C/W
MFA 1538/QQO5 8;
MFA 153?/2005

cmzcurr BENCH AT GuLBAR£¥AMM'A%%«"  %

aEmdRE_ V    
THE HON'BLE_} MR.J{JHSi'vVI_'iv{.',EwV§3.S..!.5!i'§7I:LA 

M.F.A.fia;};m5§§(30§56*--.g§j 
gr .A.Hm~~.£§§8[3G£_)5 Egg.'
  A O; %  .4

  

m1wmsrg;-----.  N

The Branch ManagcE*,:"~ %  _ VV  " _
United Indiau11'1su1'a:1_ce--.Co. L-t;!'.',« 
Bijapur, mprésgntnd by its' 
Deputy Managei,  ' ~  '-

 Unitcd,  insuxancg Co. Ltd. ,

 Regional. Oifioeh _____ _.

=.shan1:amna.va3a31:m_ Building,

Baflgzilgre   ... APELLAHT

 my art mxfaadagouda, Adv.)

  5:59; 153612006

 '  _  *3_.Hémt. Neciamma,
" ' W/o Channabasappa bmyyapura,
Aged 47 years.

  W  -.~:« -=--«--»-~w»w«  wwm W mmmnm mm wmm" W mmfiamm mm mam W' mwmmm mm mum

IN THE HIGH mum' on KARNATAK3   V   

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY 01'» é3EP?:?E:zs§BER;"::§o§§ 

 



mmw---  W-u\Jw!?€.¥ W mmmmm mm-a cmmt 0? KAWMAM Him-i cmm W mmsmmm émmw «mum

MFA 1536/2095 <3/w
MFA 15.38/V2005 85
MFA 1153?,420o5

2. Sri Shankam Gowda,

W/o Channahasappa Muyyapura, I  
Aged 25 years.  '

Sri Ravindra, V
S/0 Channahasappa Muyyapzjxafl
Aged 21 years. 

D/o Channabasappa ¥9i11_y}*'aptu:a,w , "  "
Aged 18 Years.   
Anam r/at0ddeidagri. :'  _  % 

(By Sr! Asgmk 

:1: MFA 15331 300.5% A    

1.

w

sri Ma31aP13%=i;~w %
S] 0 V’ Ma}1a.devap’paV

‘. ….. ..

wax Gdéafasjagi,

Basava:t1:.«1_ Bafgagiwadi,

. Sfi Ma11appfi,:’~”A

7, SI 0 Sansappa Vali.

‘T “Major, Féjat Odavadagi,
..f’Basa1.(ana Bagewadi,
_ Bijaplir. Imspoxnmrrs

Ashok H.Patil, Adv: for 3.1)

umr1n\w’lr’*maI’\E\£'”I I’El’£s97¥’3’ fin-“o.J”‘JW.’ ‘J?

MFA 1536/2005 c/w
MFA 1538/2005 8;

MFA 15V.3’P°»,f_20{‘)5

12% p.a. fnozn 1.3.03 and directing the

deposit the same. 9

These appeals coming on tor hesfing,

made the following: V

01. These three appeals.’ are by} athe. ai)pe}1ant–
Insurance Company 29.1 L200-4
passed by the Cozomissioiier’ ‘:Compensation,
_ ‘

02. The ;t’i’ieVV’oom1non order challenged
in these Channabasappa and the

other two ~.-iiamely, Bheemaraya Hoogar and

as loaders in the tractor–trai}cr
and that in an accident which arose

one course of their employment under the 5&3
V’ 1cspon;:iex;t;v:&v.C§1;annabasappa and the other two sustained
Vvinjmics. The Commissioner has awarded

_ % in a sum of Rs.1,7-4,605/– to the widow and

VT of tieceased Chanuabasappa and Rs.62,394/– and

b”‘4Rs.33,O39/~ to the injured claimants Sri Bheemaraya and

Mallappa, respectively. The amount is ordered to be paid along

%/

waewmuiw

WWW”-w» ww”om»mw”mwwwm &”i!£Ja”‘w1’€€”%’ mwwme WW mmmmmwwtmm mww fiwfifififlfifi W?’ Wflflwflguflfifi WWW fiwwfi? KW

MFA 1536/2005 c/w
MFA 1533/2005 85
MFA 1532/2005

with interest at 12% with effect from 01.03.2003 met

deposit.

03. The main grievance of the»evappeH’an.t¥’E–usumfiCe 0

in all these appeals is that tIie::fintiing” ms
Commissioner for Worlmaenfs the
deceased and the two the tractor-
trailer as leaders} free: the
evidence on the said persons were
grat’uitou§3′ risk was not covered

under the “te1i:e_s 0-f’the insurance policy.

04. for the appellant in support of

the “eententtiflefie submits that the complaint lodged

2 shows that the deceased and the

‘ Vt as gratuitous passengers in the tractor
that”tjtey Wete not engaged as coolies. In the light of the
éttieeeiteiabmissbn, I have perused the complaint lodged by one
Wadavadag. He has not stated in the complaint

V the deceased and the injured were haveiling as gratuitous

passengers. Therefore there is no substance in this contention.

1%

MFA 1535/2095 c/W
MFA 153332995 85
MFA 153?-[2305

6 ,

The Commissioner on his part has examined K

by the insurance company with to7._the

neeord both oral and documentary. “the

who is the empioyer of the the not’

chosen to examine tiieir; evidence
have stated that the were working
as eoolies in the uiznetor on the evidence
on record, a finding that the
tractor to bring fertilizer and
the two injured elite. were

txaveifing teas coolies. This finding being

V based. é ;_on the Vemefice on record cannot be upset by re»

same in exercise of powers under Section 30 of

the Act. At any rate, I do not find

any Apeztversity in the said finding recorded by the

mwmmwmmwewllwfl IIflI’%o?H”3 ‘énuflnifl-ifil WWW’ 9\:P¥.KE’W.9’\§.5’\W\fl

. . , Q ‘ ” — Qemmissiofier.

‘However, it is to be noticed here that the Commissioner

mw-«am-mu: «wvwwwnmn wave

0 ‘e .. {awarded interest on the amount of compensation with effect

he “from 01.03.2003. The accident has taken place on 19.07.2002.

In so flat as the claim made by the legal representatives of

J2»

MFA 1536/2005 c/W
MFA 1538/2005 85
MFA 153?/2905

deceased Channabasappa, who are the claimants

Compensation Case No.26] 2003 E’3f}I,’I’lC’fiI’1:)_1gxd:A”‘V:.

entitled for interest at 12% with ct1″e’&g tflé’

month fmm the date of accidcn£»i;.§i§’;~.fioni.’in far” V

as the other two injured ciajmants–i£i”L’W6r1gmeji1’s*Comiiensafion
Case No.27/2003 Br. Bhecmaraya and
Mallappa are congtjtngd, interest on the
amount of cflbct from the
date of v’:fCoVn1missioncr i.e., from

29.1 1.2094 as non-schedule injuries.

06. With .,%lb’0V(:i’vInACafiij..i:f’!.i%1tiOfl, all the appeals are disposed

he; ____ deposit shall be transferred to the

‘-$o:$;ifi;issi91ie:tj’ f6r_ Woackmcnfs Compensation, fiijapur, for

di}-{bu .:3a” 7 with iaw. Excess amount if any, shall

be appcflant-Insurance Company.

.5 wwrwmw w.mv’ mmmnwamwmmm mmrn mwwwu wa” mammflamfifi fllzwfl flmwuxi mi” %mEKNfl3.’Kfil.¥(A Mfiéfifi Cfikififi? W? §€1%RNfia”E%K& HEQH fiflflflf

wo–esvwnmw wow-as mum-1-numuum-gar-us-u”1 vcsmwmwe

Sd/-.

Iudge