High Court Karnataka High Court

Branch Manager United India … vs Bheemappa H Madar on 19 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Branch Manager United India … vs Bheemappa H Madar on 19 August, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
 R.¢§i0I1a1VMvfl's~"%€T;

IN THE Him; COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH"-----_

HFGULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY 01+' AUGUST 2063 V " M  

PRESENT

THE 1-ioN'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. $i?Ef:1I§I;IA}§.i2_@k0. «. " 

ANDV %  .
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B,-~3.'éj.§«;Efi:~1vAsE 'eowviia
M.F.A.NO.2412/ 2004 '1§:o.f1é6:é]'2o0mwC)

BETWEEN:

In M.F.A. No.2z;;?;»g  * %.;_  

Branch Mei:a.age'r,V  1 .  '
Unzited India«£nsma'ug-c Lt.r.1.';«. 
s.s. 12mntRoac1," _ % '  
Bijapur,,, "  
'Now mpifjesemed by fig'
'United.,India'lns}1rs::1nce Co. Ltd. ,
R'€$'%'7511a1'€',f3<?¢,~ "  " ..

  25, 1*.-«,I_.G. Rga;<i?,--__ *
 Bangaloirc -=..'56er'oo1.  APPELLAHT

" +.  (B3? SR1. RSV. NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

  

   ~B-iiccmappa H. Madar,
   New aged about 53 years.

9%..



2. Nmgawa
W] o Bheemappa Madar,

New aged about 51 years,
Occ: Household.   

Both 1*] 0 ingaleshwar,
Basavanabagewadi Taluk,

District : Bijapur.

3. Kashjnath I. Ukkah,
Age: Major,
Occ: Business as
Agriculture,
R/0 Ingaleshwara, " ._ C
Basavanabagewad:Ta1uk;""'-.."«  1 
Dist. Bijapur.     _.   "

(BY SR1 S.K.  '§2Ej3'DIf'-{,A"?iE§V<5C¢A'1"E FOR R- 1 & R-2)

THIS M.Fj';A§'V_..1sV  30(1) OF WGRKMEIWS
C0MPENSVA'FiC).N' AC:{.';%%.VPR4v1§q. .Of?§)ER "{):}?iTED 20.1.2004 PASSED BY
THE CQ;u¢i»1:ss1ONE§§"FoR W01-"eKMEN's COMPENSATION,

SUB-ADzvvisa.eN+'~3.,, BIJAPUR IN wcA/ SR-433/2001.

 

  'In M.F'.A.. N(;;1'.?t§2A[2004:

' '  1 :1 ._ Vflhimagipat'

QLSIOT Hanamavva Madar,

A  _  about 53 years.

r-.5 

 fiiitgawa
" W/0 Bhimappa. Madar,
.. Aged about 51 years.

 Both are residents of

%/



These M.F.A.s coming on for Orders this day

SREEDHAR RAD. J, delivered the following:- 

JUDGMENT

Sn. R.V. Nada Gouda, Iearned Counsel takes ::o’:ec,¢%ef¢i T L

appellant/respondent Insuxance A’ .y »«

Both these appeals @’eWa1’ise’o1;t ofihe’

One Basappa Bheemappa Madar Txector
bearing Regn. No. KA-28/*:4g1j9.48._;f No. KA-
28/’1′-1249 which tnrtled gr Basappa

Bheemappgf ” hefoie the W.C.

Commissione:; ea:-we Vthe It is the contention that

the waé ~!v_( 11’l~:i1i’:g es bkeaner in the Tractor Trailer

rat” the the aeeicient. The W.C. Commissioner has

” of Rs.2,24,00{)/– with statutoxy

The insurer of the Tractor is in appeal

The claimants are in appeal for

‘i.”‘«en1égancefi1ent of the compensation.

.._..’}%’he FIR lodged 1131′ mediately after the accident by M.

~..’v’A Shi?appa, inmate of the tractor at the time of the accident

discloses that, himself, one Hanamantha Mallappa ”

Basappa Mallappa Managuli and the deceased

tractor traflor azong with the load o£:’1ém’on “am.; its?

transport to Basavana Bagewadi A.

Village. In the course of the thliex.
turtles} resulting in death of and
injuries to other inmates. Trailer
however in the ‘v:;’t’,o1tan1issioner,
admitted that the Cleaner in the
vehicle. The, to be a ooiiusive
a»dmission.:V’v..The’cootetjts’of is lodged immediately

after the accidsentvv = assumed as authenticated

.\_?:(‘,*I’Si0I1..,t3£:’II].1:”!.032 be considered as a cleaner in

V. the at the time of accident, but he was

goods. The petitioners chosen to

mfipeaisafion may be a mistake under W.C:. Act but

isiiesfertbelesse-* the criminal case records pmduced by the

-before the W.C. Commissioner clearly shows that the

was travelling with the goods. The insurance

9′ is a comprehensive insurance policy it is not an

E

5%/,

agriculturai policy. The policy which covers the risk of

passenger travelling along with goods 11/ s. 14? of the

Act. The accident has occurred in the year 200 1, it

after 7′ yeasts, it would be harsh and inequitable fee. A’

claxman’ ts to another round of litigation V

Bijapur. The liability of the

evident from the Police reco_r_ds. The have be
awarded compensation as oer toxts and

not in terms of the W.t’3–., Act. – if V

3. The to be assessed at
R’s.2, 1001- p. i12, The the pamnts and 50% of
the i11co1;r;’1e*v is’: itowwds personal expenses.
~Afihe benefit of dependents. The

loss V would be Rs.1,63,800/~–. The

to Rs.2o,ooo/- towards bss of

Re.10,000/~ towards funeral expenses. In all

axe entitled to total compensation of

h as against Rs.2,24,()OO/~ awarded by the W.C.

ilommissioner. The claimants are entitleci to the interest at

6% p.a. on the compensation amount from the datcj”of_’

petition till payment.

4. in View of the masons and discutssioxgs abovuefi ” ‘ j_

the appeal of the claimants is the “of ‘

the Insurance Company is partly

% A %
MM VfTudQ3I

Rbv*