= (age% 'i:":»:'i__ SU£)ASi;i¥\N~,-----.'%BV.)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNA'fAKA_....__
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA '% : '
DATED THIS THE 23*" BA.-'v"OF«3t,_eL.¥ 2e§ 8T.
Be§oas_ *
THE HONBLE MR.JUS1fI€:_E 3Av¢.:§r:
M F.A
BETWEEN:
THE B-RANCH MA:;~:.AGER - % «V
NEW INf}L*'3u5$.':'nSU:RA,f*£CZE c;0~. g;15::.
BIJAPUR, Nsw REP. av %
REGIQNI-EL. MAu\iAGE'fR,_"'*
New ZE\iEiIA Ai5$U'FiA'NCE ca. 1.70.,
FEVEGIQNAL.QFFICE__2==B,-- %
UHITY BUiLDfP~§G~..
ANNEXE, P%kkKAu:~5%G*AkRAo no/an
_BANG;ALCiR,E€2?~--._
A A AP-?ELi..ANT
4%: """KAfii*??i'S§€xVE. s/0 LALASAB KALAKERI
NQW~AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
£)C§2: COOLIE
~ i2kT%4%_:v1AsHAB1a/0 LALASAB KALAKERI
'-- NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
% FATIMA W/O SAHEB PATIL
NGW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
ALL R/'0 ALAGUR,
019»
TALUK SINQAGI
DIST: BIJAPUR
4 EALASD, SIG KRISHNA SUTAR
AGE: MMOR, QCC: BUSINESS é
R,/O AVALI KHURD, TQ: RADHANAGARI " V'
DIST: KQLHAPUR-416 005 "
Mi-'.A. IS FILED uis 39(1) 'éF"Iw.c."ACT» Pf<I.?a9fiIr~sg*.=;.I.'r}+Is
HON?-LE COURT BE PLEASED "T9 ASIQE THE
IIUDGMENT AND GRDER,DATED-----Z5;1.'2008 PFKSSEEQ' BY THE
COMMISSICENER FOR 'I*\if}.Ri(f'iEf§i7S --.CQAM.?ENSAT'ION SUB-
DI'v'N.i, BIJAF-'UR, IN VVCA/SR4'3j9}*'2;G0'?I.;:I I _
deiivered the féiicgwing _
?his appaai comirag m':"fé'r=~7;é§j*1isg§2~.i_g§;§".tij§:i§;" Bay, the court
Tfhe _ IE5 against the award in
v¢cA/sRi39'z'a;7 w.._.fié1s$é;fi-Q"".::»'§r the Labour Officer 31
Cem§nivss§o:férI-fg_r"WeE%r:ni'en's Ccmpensatierrz on 25.1.2088
cémgxenséiifin is the iegai representatives of the
A '--de:';eaI$éi:§a{érbip!.é'yee}.
.. xabgaeai has been iisted far admission, but
I IV~IIf":i;:hs§der;im tine grounds uraed and by ctmsent cf the
' iégarned counsei, I have heart an merits.
I 3. Anneai admitted.
v (72
aw
4
In this regard, he relies on the caves' policy ta show':-h'at._§t
forbids the vehicie being used far hire er reys%a}'é"'=a,jS_-T
aaiicy was issued under Misce§iana;d;;s_ and_.'s'peéi'ai'T§pe '*
Vehieies i}G§iC'Y. Ha wauid furthe:;'»._cdr;'te.1fi:d"'that jthe"re-.w'a:aaA
no basic proof that the deceaéedwae wdrking'V:L$'ré.§%varV§h_§é
reseendent and hence, the fiat have
iedged the ciaim. Ait:"a'raa'tivef;£yf.,"~~V.hja.A:"aabmits that the
ciaimant had faded ta :ahVdavf:V.thefy;.a'w'erevAidedéendenta of tfia
deceased an4d3._ihe%}{e£;9a_, tfie awjuardaaaé'iiajfistified.
F. Thee a_bfc.sve'V':éeatea,§i--ans'ifiaai naceaaaréiy faii for the
feiidwifffi fé.3S'dna:' - '
T'r:a a4ssertid;a\af'~i:§'ze ciaimants that Mauiaii was
"".a.v_dri=..r§} the éihareafiandant who drove the tracter, has
'tr.aaafa'rr:fted'va.§ht.e acceatabia evidence as the same is
e':sa§t'azfi:.i'a'{?;=2dV..a$; ecdiar and dacumentary evidence. The
'VV_'ciai:iia.nfa' Vacuiar evidence that the deceased was
'A :~ff'*:a§'xi;§ir;yed with the 4"' respondent finds fut: support from
frcm which it is evident that fie was under
empiaymant of the 4″‘ respondent far a period of 4 years
arecadind the date of the accident. This wduid aiso shew
OW”
5
privity sf cantracfi er reiasticnshis :1? master and ser3ia.nt
between 4*” respondent and deceased. It alsa V.
as an the date c:-f occurrence, the said reia:Vt_id’n:shijpVV:§§’és» H
subsisting and the deceased in fact:v*v§és”‘t3’r§vv§4na.;«tfi§»«t;févctér
in questiér: unéer the instrutftficjns éf fi2.e c3w.§:erii’nsu’héd–~.. ”
The fact of his driving the Saié “t-fitter ifi fu_?ft’ne..%*;
investigation papers w?:դ::%1_ Ҥtatefi::ent cf
varieufi witnessa. that the
deceased d;edi%w%::ia argvingwet.wam%as ‘prrmf in stseif
that he was€’5ri§;9i’rg.6V’f’he Sfijcé it is not in diszmte
that thégvve_h!¢i§’waV;;’«own.éd…_by the 4%’ respendent and the
a§peiiant’ha d.i:’is~2.:«1?«:e;e.?j’£fie’:’sé’id vehicle, if at aii anybeéy
V coui;1.;jd’is9utefV fi:,..__Vit’ ‘ia~:aé ofiiy the 43’ respondent. The 4″‘
notwféken part in the proceeding arafi éifi
:*:§,-t’-‘__;:§is;::Vi;i’i:2’V_ the cieceased was empisyed by him.
_ Théfafor__.=s;,’ 5§j’rAden was msre an the insurer in estabiish the
,VL’.’sai¢fi1_dé.-fer§ce. Therefcre, the gmund urged to the contrary
-_ th a’i; ~§.”fié’re was rm materiai ta show that deceased Moulaii
.,y§as empleyed by the 4″” respondent is untenable.
afié
I
:3
8. The second ereund that the vehicie was hireeete
semeene eise eee therefore, death of ivieuiai§~~~~*.%ée$’._”__’riejg”
eevered under the eeiiey, eise needs reject£or:_,’t :_fe<;ea'i.i$eL'4_t::e'
eppelient has edreittediy iseued fi§etV e'ee.:_':peiie$;'V"§Ve ]
iseuee to meet the stetutery Vrequirefnerfi: to 'iee
enumerated under sectien 14?""ee:f_"the Aet.~.V_ said
emvfsien, every vehieive:4'need_eV'"te jebmeuieefii§3 insured
ta cever the feiiewsne risgei L A n
'147. eeq,.ear¢mem' ¢e 'fie–av:§aLes' and limits of
liability: * '
(1}~–» E%s'~Ve.er5'e:r.V.te–::t.e:fneiy«..w.E»'Eh the requirements cf
th'i~sV_..C!j:epte;,'«~.e poiécy :3? insurance must be a
'– eeiicy .\fe..hich"+:__.–. '
"*.(e}_ is *issa.;ed by a pereon who is an
" Veuthcriéed insurer; and
{b} "Ǥzf1sur:ee the person or ciesses of persons
speeified in the poiicy te the extent
specifiee in sub-sectien (2)—-
against any iiabiiity which may be
incurred by him in reseect 0:’ death of er
bodily injury to any persen {inciuding
ewner of the needs are hie eutherised
representative carried in the vehicle er
damage to any ereperty ef a third party
caused by er arising eut of the use of the
vehécie in e eubiic piece:
ii} against the death or bediiy injury to any
passenger ef e pubiic service vehicie
caused by or arising out of the use of the
vehieie in e eubiic piece;
–3
(2) subject to the proviso to sub~se<:tIcn (:5), a
peiicy ef insurance referree to in subeectien
{1} shail cover any iiabiiity incurred in.vre:-ipect
of any aceidere, up to the fal¥ew.ir.e.g'_;.ii_feite;..A
namely: _
a) save as erevieed in cieuse(£:;V),”_”t.§}geeiere’ee2’1§f
of iiabiiity incurred; V , –
b} in reseeet ef demege see ‘any ‘efhe°«
third party, a limit :>’E’z’u§.’}ee’s six th_euse:.!i::1?1./.:
Previeed that any poiicfi ef.V.insu}’erV:’ce ise.§j1ed;”w§t.h–‘3an§
Eimited liabiiity and in fe7rer:Ve;» immeeI_i_ete§y before the
cemmeecemerat ef this____A’Ct, ‘shat? eentinue to be
effective fer a .;ireried«”Vof”£ejur’e’menths’Aafter such
commencement erVe’t.iii’-.thi2jdetexefn expiry cf such
pelicy whichever is em-:ee,r;*: ”
Thereff:>r’e’,* ‘::ei§€i;2ief”*ef’*tfie ‘seeéeverevision, the insurance
cempeifiyj fie risk against the death :2?
eodiiy injtifi-.5 ..fevtii’e_’e?-:1eie’9iee ef the insuree which inciudes
-“‘~._V_dri32_e§’r ;.i h;*i{_ ieeeer: …. when the statute has provided
‘cefiea;2;;ivee’ry_'<§.:*§eu.rence eeverage in respect of bodily injury
er. e'eeth'efj?iée eriver, the insurerxce cemeany canrzet put
veite fetce wriggie out of the situaticm eniy er: the basis
"X_'~eAf 'it'e.pieedieg witheut eroef that it was hiree to semebeey
' egise.
{fife
8 n
9. The meet euestiere that needs cer*:sicieret§errg’_”;i_;=,,
whether er the time :3? the accident, the victim. _
emeieyrnent ef the insured and whefrraer he or
discharging duties assigned te hire b}!e’§ivirr4me -.bf*-
emeieyment. It becemes imreeteriei.vfihether’V’%’1;;f;.;§-__Vjvefiiele
was hired or used for private ssr::se¢%Aer&¢rtn%§rw:se . In the
instant case, the undisaefiree er>nere’es frem the
rnateriai propesitien in §:he:–pleeeirr2e’sv:..eer§_—eeunter is that
wrziie ieedirre ‘the”ea1rrier’:’xri’orti:en ef the tractor,
eeceesee 1rrei’rer”cepsi2ed. He was at
the reigeverrt Such injury and
censeqLren_t”eeetrrreirs’-~s§uére!y within the eefinitien of
’emefieyryjerrf V-.vi_rgj’ury’ V’er1d therefore, the ciairn was
16.. Tr:’e’.V*”3i%3V.T’?irnissiener for workmerrs Cemeensetien has
recere.eie.:.eV”flnéine on fact on these aspects which is
“w.jej’»sieeperted by the materiai on recerd. The evidence
‘ rgferrderee was erziy by the ciairnents and rm evieenee has
mfeeen rendered by the insurer er insured. Such finding, I
am satisfiee, rreeds FIG interference. Therefore, it has ‘re
5315
§
be effirrnee that the ciairnarsts hae estabiished the
deceased was empioyed by the 43′ respondent and hedied
during discharge of duties assigned to him.
3.1. As reaards the conterxtien that the eie.§rhehi£§.7§vefe«.’ *
not eeeenfiihe en the deceased,_the_4eiei.trieri’te’jv»he’ve;_or:_ RV’
their part terieered evidence ta s:tn§:w’:’_A_thet ‘they.:’wer§e:_,/gj$t.i.
eniv’ iiareximateiy’ retested te th.e”‘~tiece’e’sé:fi a_ruf:.:e\tet.{“ieto5 the * L’
ceteaery of deeeheehte. ae aefiiiea um: the_AAv’r5rki11en’s
Cempensetien Act, bat iéreire e«ie:i§–.t;-.:>teiVi3gfieeehding er: him.
Such eseertieh ir;a*e__het:i5eer::Theeet.ee thsurer in any
rrtersrser e:§c!:e;§it–“.Vfe_r’wfe’eh’ie__ suggestions made in cross-
exemihatteti. -Th’e–y’V “ithtV.beeh ehie te sah/ace 3¥”lY’fi’:ii”sfi
in c»rese«eexereit:eti’6’n or these witnesses to shew that the
V:’ste;teme’rite_vi”made by them were either feise er
I tiféiihce their statements have trahsferrnee
inte””–.ieeei’ etiidence to act when, the Corrirriissiener was
J’ri..eht ih”aéceptihe their eiee that they were eetaeridents of
e.1’1tAi:§e”e’eceesed and were thus entitled te maintain the ciairn.
3%??-
10
12.. Fer the reasons aferesaici, I find that the.’.§:°z?:i;}i.i§;j:1:e5:
order is just, ereper and suffers from rm izifirrsifiy,
otherwise. Censeeuentiy, the egg:-;:ea»%–.is -‘The-, V’
impugned order is cersfirmed. In t i’2Ve£:.i_i*iium1s’?.;a ‘n<:es,
is ¥'H3 erder ea te casts.
vgh*