IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATQEA *'
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD V
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY»Ao;«#4AUejtus ?rf'J:;¥r;c> 8 V
BEFORE
THE HONVBLE MR.JUsT1cE K.1§";K£;sHAV.§r»gq.j§AY;{NA%
M. F.A No;7€$:4'l.2005'{"v5I_+(T_a'} J
BETWEEN:
M/S. NAT1oNALINsURm'c--E _ V .
COMPANY LTD; : -.
BY ITS BRA-NGH1M2'.£NAGE_R'--V.,_
NOW REPRESENTED By}
rrs A1)MIN1SrRA'zf1'vE 'GAFPICER
M/S. NATzoNAL'zN.*:1uRAIsn:;E_.co.L'1'1:).,
REGI0NAVL"OFFiCE'» '
BANGALORE. . , ...APPELLAN'I'
(By. S§§1i.A;M.VE3NKATESvH as SRI.B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA,
_ 1. r£&.cr:'AN'oPAsHA@ CHAND HUSSAIN
S/O VHONNUR SAB,
A. ;."\'.G'ED"ABOUT 26 YEARS,
_EX~CLEANER
F;fO HAMPANAKATTE VILLAGE
E DASANAPURA POST,
HOSPET TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
&
2. DANI SANNA KOTRAPPA
S/O MARIYAPPA,
MAJOR,
OWNER OFMAXICAB,
RESIDING AT NEAR V1SHNU'ifALK.1ESv, ' '
RAMANAGAR, " _ ' .
NETAJI ROAD, ,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLVL._: "~V.._ »_.V,1R.§3sA?ONVDENTs"'
{By s:i.Y.LAKsHM1KA;srrH RED.§?{.&"$MI';Y;M£\LA§'HI,
A{)VS).}j2,,;'>, 5522429) _' V
THIS MISGELLAN'3'.QLFS" SIRS'? {APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER sEc:(1O}g7O.O3§<:(1)*:OF%yv:k:. "AO1"1'AeA:NsT THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARJI)$.11;'20{i4._1§;AS$E«;13'fl\T wc:A/15:17/258/2000 ON
THE AND COIs41\/EISSIONER FOR
wORr;jvEN_?S' SUB-DIVISION-2, BELLARY,
AWARDING OF RS.4G,748l- Wm-I INTEREST AT
12% P.A."' 1~'_ROM " OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT
&D;§*!«;§I§G-:'TI~«iIS BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
§*O%LLOw1&m':r;AO'%
JUDGMENT
‘ The insurer Of Maxi Cab bearing registration NO.KA-35
owned by mspondeflt No.2 hczein, has filed this appeal
under Section 30 (1) of the Worlmaczfs Compensation Act (in
%/
short ‘ the Act’) questioning the legaiity and
the order dated 5.1 1.2004 passed by the .
Commissioner for Workmen”s
2, Bel1a1y in so for as it zcaiseuit
WCA/NF/No.258/2090 directisdge-tthe combany to
pay the determined compenséaiiionivtio tespondent No. 1.
2. Respondent petition before
the Commissioiitin Worit1n’en;s’j’i.Comi1A)ensation by filing
petition seeking compensation of
said to have been
sustained of his employment
under According to respondent
rJ§§’1;..ag iethe ‘Maxi Cab owned by respondent
No.i§’2′,t.i_3:s}}ii1e’ ggececding in his Maxi Cab on 1.2.2000,
on NH-13 lorry bearing zegistration
B 36-=}i._3AA3~ came fi’o1n opposite direction driven by its
V and negligent manner and dashed against
and as a result of this he sustained grievous
1′ ~ which has resulted in permanent disability.
W
4. As an appeal under Secfion 30 is
Inaintainable in this Court only when… —-t1A§e.VV
question of law is involved, i_t1ifi.e ‘
following substantial quesfioas of ‘*fiV1.e o
appeai:
(3) Whether the “~fi_ndi_hgs Acf Commissioner
holding thafthe. appgrafi-t.[V”1s’ea1so liable to
pay compensation xindier.-thev covering
a passengesvehiele to._a__ cleaner; is justified?
Havi3::’g fvegaafd xiteent Supmme Court
itlcismééntaiss:
(b) whether the’=fii1di:1_gs of the Commissioner
“” ma: the’?peti'{ioi1er fiom 15% disability
V. _ for’ *d1¢–«.simp1.: iiaatzare of injuries sustained by
‘ the petifioneajisy j1;.sfified;
(c)V’ percentage of loss of earzling
capacity’ is a question of law:
service of notice of this appeal, respondent
H the clans’ am: has appealed through his
cosnsel. Respondent No.2 — owner of the maxicab
., ” has reihained absent in spite of service of notice.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both
” sides. Pemscd the records.
W
insurance company is liable to indeInm1jz’
respect of the claim of the applicant —- Iespetltiezttv a£}hc..
was admittedly ttaveiiing in the
cleaner.
9. Section 146 of the :ieaie.&V§tt1jv.jt}1g%necessity
of insurance against ficcoxding to this
section, no vehicle be used at a
public ‘_th.e¥1ae is; to the use of
the said complying with the
requiIt§menéS”J;f.Vch2ipter, ‘ ‘ ~. _ _ ~
10; “‘t4_Setctici~),_ at the M.V.Act deals with
requgieements cf’-pcilpiciepsi: and limits of liability. According to
VClause(b) of Sub–Section( 1) of Section 147,
t”the-t’__Po}iej*’~v.,of’ issued is required to cover the
liabiiity -respect of the death arising out of and in the
cf the employment of the employee of the person
by the Policy and in respect of the bodily s
_,su:stai:1ed by such an employee arising out of and in the
course of the employment only to the extent of Iiabiiity
kt
10
1 1. In View of the discussions made above, the.
of the Workmen’s Compensation .
appeuam is iiabie to indeminfy the »ini11ed_–iii”:e:§pee’t es the ” ‘V ‘V
claim of the eiearner carried in the is
unjustified and it is contrary to ‘flee piiovisionsee 14′? 1
of the M.V.Aet. Therefore, _{§onefmensafion
Commissioner is not V the “appe]1,an.t-
Insurance company to amount to the
applicant-R.’IV{ is entitled to
enforce the zoW:ier”»ofithe vehicle namely 52.2
who Wes. aidmitteii’i3if_i’fisv«efiigiloyer. In View of the above, the
appeal deserves to be
eeee;e;eg1y,* the appeal is allowed. The order
defiedte ::f5}’:3:.£2Qo4 passed by the Labour omeer 3:.
Cceiinissioxieriin for Worlmtezfs Compensation, Sub-Division»-»
H, in case No.wcA/Nmss/2003, in so far as it
A ‘ii’ to fastening the liability on the appel1ant–k1sura11ee
Company is hereby set aside. The claim petition as against
iinsmanee company stand dismissed.
b/.
11
13. The amount deposited by the appeHant–InsuraijLcf§’ ”
Company at the time of the tiling this appcai is ordcrefliitov ‘ ‘
refimdcd to it.
RS--Page Nos.1 to 6 . mv*-Page Nos}? to 11