Loading...

National Insurance Company … vs Mr Ameensab on 16 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Company … vs Mr Ameensab on 16 September, 2008
Author: K.Ramanna
 _ ADV...)

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF' SEWEMBSE,    

BEFORE'  . A 
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTI.CE ii: RAMA1~fNAV .. " A
MF'A.Nos.5766i2006 clw 'E3641 2066. ciwA15?'6i§I"i20{fii6.
IN MFA NO.57£36/2006  " 

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL INsUI§A1_~§cEw::o. '  
BELGAUM%_D.0..,   1, V * * 
NO. 144,vVSUBHA;{AM 't*:é3Is:I3>z,§:X,
M.G.ROAD,_BANc:=AI.,oRE  . .
RERBY ms ASS'F,AD.§£N.t3FICER__.
K.M.KUMUDA._     . APPELLANT
{BY 31?: N.P,K¥J.PPELUR,'- ADV. FOR SR1 B.C.SE'I'HARAMA RAO,

S/O.fi;LLASAE%'j_BHAGWAN,
AGED ABv_0U.'vI',~2'6 YRS,
R/A.MI}D§1IOL, MUDHOL TALUK,

  '-»1=3$LGAUM3~D1sT.

 "«2.KR:s«HNA,
_  s;0;v';'1"rAL GHATAGEM,
  " AGED ABOUT 43 YRS,
,  .R;'A.UT'rURA,
 BAGALKOT DIST. .. RESPONDENTS

{BY SR1 BABU.H.ME’f’AGUDE}A, ADV. FOR R-1}

iii-ktii

_{..’__;;;;)

TIIrs’MI«’IaI IS FILED U/S-.30{1) op w,c.Ac:r AGAi§ISTI’THE
JUDGMENT AND 012139212 D1228/3/2006 Izaxssgn III

WCA:NF:138:2005 ON THE FILE OF’ THE I.ABOUR_.–€)FFICEE?._fiI3SIDI.V
COMMISSIONER FQR WORKMENS’ COMPENSATION, BAGAIIKOT,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,82,204/~ _.:'”i”I”£~.I_’Ii.sI’I’IE,-“}2E’–.S’lT’ _p:I*’g

I2% AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THEV-DATE’ 0-5′ 1_I.<;€;II;I3',1~a*I'fi'.»'1'I'II,I.
DEPOSIT AND DIRECTING THE APPE:I,LA1sIfIf HEREIN '–I'o».DEPOsIfI'
THESAME, " I
IN MFA NO.5764l2{}06 I

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL INSURANCE I.A;d.,
BELGAUM 9.0., _
N(}.14*-3, SUBHARAIVI commszx,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE —- _ ‘
REPBY ITS AssT.A1:)III_N.Q=_I+’IcERI

K.M.KUMUDA. ‘I APPELLANT

(BY SRI’:__N.}?.i{¥;¥If5?ELU’R,_IAISV; m SR1 B.C.SEE’i’HARAMA RAO,
ADV.) ‘ .

ANS:

IBAs§II°PA’, I I’ .

I _(O”.’KAR1EPP}&..KUMB§ILIII I
A.G’ED ;II30I.15’Ii3I:,yIzs,
I12/’.«z;-.I_I~IIII,I1:3’a;::>I,,’;sIIII DHGL TALUK,

BE’r[«’G_£IUM« I_;§Is*Ix I I’

2.KR’ESHI’§I§, -.

4 , S/0.v1’mII. GHATAGEM,
~ 5, ‘man A£~30’U”f’ 41 YRS,
‘ ..’~I2/A;IIfI*mRA,
“I3A:3ALKoT DIST. ,, RESPGNDENTS

(BY SRI 8AI3U.H.ME’¥’AGUBBIi, ADV. FOR R-1}

ii-iitii

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1} OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT ANE3 ORDER D’I’.28 / 3/ 2006 PASSED IN
WCA:NF:13′?:2005 ON THE FILE OF’ THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS’ COMI’ENSA’l’ION, BAGALKOT,

fix

AWARDING COMPENSATION OF’ Rs.1,65,53()/— WITH AT
12% AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF’ ACCIDEI’~IT.I.’I’ILL

DEPOSIT AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HERE1I’§M’1°0

THE SAME.

IN MFA NO6769/2006
BETWEEN:

NATIONAL INSURANCE c:o.1,td.,’ _
BELGAUM 13.0.,
NO. 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE? ~1_. A ‘
RERBYITSASST.ADMN.O-FIBER’, ”
K.M.KUMUDA. = “API”~’ELI.¢AN’I’

(BY SR1 N.P.KUP§’E1,UR,:”ADV’;.;?oRj=–sR1- I33,-,C.S§.’i’HARAMA RAD,
ADV.)

1.NINGAP?A,’ – ,
s/ o.sHANKAr:AP?AV ISZOLKAR;

AGED’ ABOUT 4 2» ms,

V. I R/A::fv§:UD_I5iOL, MUIJI-v§.Qi…«’f’ALUK,
’13EL<:_AU'M* mm

~ "

S,f0.VIT’Ffi£;”_GHA’I’AGEM,
AGED Asoxrmi ms,
R/A.Lr*m–JRA,

‘;_VBAGALi4,’?50/- WITH INTEREST AT
12% AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THEXVQATE OF’ ACCIOENT TILL

3 ,/r
K 5 ./
MW”

DEP{)Si’l’ AND DERECTENG THE APPELLANT HEREIE7

THE SA§v§E.

‘ri~~:Es;;:’.. APPEALS COMING ON frog IjI’EA:i?iN’G ms ‘B32, ‘*1?i;~_:jE
comes DELIVERED THE FOLL0»W¥NG:~Y.A ” ” ” ‘-

JUDGI§iE_§'[1′ N

All these three the iIlS’i}.I\’3I’ of the
vehicle contenc1i;3*g,__ were
working as vehicle) under
mspondeptjv ” vehicle met with an
accidentdue’ driving of the vehicle by its
driver astt sustained injuries in the

accident riuriog» course of employment. The insurance

A’ ffiltffi astttoia the date of accident. After considering

both the parties, the Commissioner for-

wo14lc@e1:;.~eo§j;ip1ensat35on, Bagalkot allowed the claim petitions

~ awardixigvoompensafion together with interest at 12% p. a. after

3 from the date of accident and the appellant who is the

of the vehicle is ordered to indemnify the owner of the

fveh.ie1e.. Being aggrieved, the appeliant-insurer has filed these

appeais.

2. The only short point involved in these appeals is
whether the Commissioner for workmen Compensation,

Bagalkot is justified in fastening the liability on the appelaint to
pay compensation to the claimants] respondent No.1 all

these appeals? I

3. The contention of the learned counsel _

is that since the vehicle involved in tiieeeeioeot

vehicle, according to the permit TissuecVi4′!33}”i;1;1e

respondent No.2, appellant is to coyfer. VV

the owner of the vehicie to;eo”t’11<:'Ve.:':e§é'te;'zt of i.e., 2

cooiies/hamalies and one 4%¢1fiy¢g~.e+o liability fixed

on the _» _ Commissioner for workmen

Compensafioo to 'eomoeosefion to the claimants is totally

'V and liability fixed on the appellant insuxer

aware: passed in WCA/NF/139[2005 which is

oi;d:"thus the owner of the vehicle alone is liable

_to 152:}: and not the insurer. The fact that the

" }espondent~1 in the aforesaid three appeals who

as eooiies under respondent»? sustainetzi injuxies

motor vehicle accident during the course of employment

. 71133 not been seriously disputed by either of the parties. The

judgment under chailenge does not disclose that the appellant
has produced certified copy of the pcnnit to Show that the

owner has contnzavened the terms and conditions of the permit

of the policy as per which the appeilant is liable to

the owner of the vehicle only in respect of the 3

including the driver" of the vehicle. In this

counsei for the appeiiant referred to Rule é V' '

Motor Vehicles Rules. The Co1i:missi6nei~.'fofV

Compensation by relying on tiievliiecisiet; case . L'

of UNITED INDIA msURAN_c:Ef~._<3Q.L'r':);-« _7MA'r'rEI)U
MANIKYAM (ACJ 2001 AP i'19*r§ 23:, SA_fs'!f-'P.TH vs PASIYAPPAN
(ACJ 2002 MADRA$ 15:1':;;v,g»§§here;in_ i"t Vi_svQ '}3:c:–v:;'1¢':'.1 that in case of
only goods %%ch§;:1¢, . entitled to seek
compefisafian ieiid injuries during the course of

empI0ymeIV£t.__'But case, the permit issued by the

_ comxrsetefii favour of the owner of the vehicle discloses

goods vehicle ahd owne;: is aliowed to carry two

motor vehicle apart from its driver. The

V . appei}anvt§in;si}I41'er is expected to indemniijr the owner of the

Srehéeie tviiabstizle extent of driver and two cooiies who sustained

'ifiitiries during the course of employment. Since the vehicle

-~i;mViolved in the case is a light goods vehicle, six coolies may not

vbe required for loading and unloading. Therefore, -the

Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has wrongly relied

on the above said decisions rendered by the Madras High;

and Andhxa Pradesh High Couxt.

4. I have also gone through t1;e…eonte:ité’ ” ‘V

produced by the appellant which dise1ose$e:§Lai’ee51 h’..§s

Rs.1oo 1- towards compulsory PA«.__ to §w¢n’e;a~gd1~;,vé:,§: .

the liability fixed on the appefiz¥i1=t_V1:by u the ‘-Ceiminieeioner for
‘Workmens’ to the
claimants in thxeeelaim perverse
and ungusfifiaeieé fie by the R”i’O 8:.
Rule 160 of the copy of the FIR
discloeee all these appeals who
flavclling in the said vehicle,

h0We§f€I’, e the d.five1? of vehicle has net sustained any

i:uj1’1Vi-iee tIiie’_said eeefdent. Thetefoe, in View of the fact that

f:;;_§: disputed about quantum of compensafion

fie these appeals deserve to be allowed

“ae per” 2155: above discussions. Accordingly, the appellant is

V’ indemnify the ewner of the vehicle and is liable to pay

f: gsmpcnsauion to only the claimants in case Nos.WCA/M?/137

Br. 138] 2005 and ewner of the vehicle namely respondent–2

alone is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,54,’75€)/- to the

claimant in Case No.WCA/ NF] 139/2005.

.’ “”‘/
.1. ~

5. As far as awarding of interest

respoI1d.ent~–1/the injured ciam::’ b T AV

after 30 days from the date of adjud»ic§1t:fiA}ii’Tof

but not 30 days after the datc of: . ‘ j _ _

5. Aocrordingly, tho ap1::;ea£..”_f.i&}3’1′:,57t.’5’E§] moo is hereby
allowed. The juc£g1ii€:1§£- passed. by the
Commissioner _i<br,__ is hereby
confirmed. the appellant to pay
the the owner of the
vehiclefvresyéfikiéagt. set aside. The respondent
No.2 a10£1C~- the award passed in the claim

petiti=.§11'i.e., WCA / NF/ 139/2005. Respondent No.2 is direéted

of Rs.1,54,'750/– together with accrued

I from 23-4-2006 on the date of deposit

from today. The appellant is entitled to get

"rr;fundzovf éoo amount deposited in MFA.5769/ 2006.

The appeals MFA.Nos.5'764/20fl6 and $766/2006 am

.1, Hheimby dismissed.

3d/-r
Iudgg

Sp!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information