Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Sangeetha Narasimha Bhovi on 28 January, 2010
Author: Arali Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 28"" DAY or JANUARY 2010 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NA_G_Ai'RiAJ:.i_i,:'~  C C' 1

MFA No.29s5/zoos  ii

BETWEEN:

United India Insurance Co, Ltd., 
Hospet Branch,  _ 
Through its Divisional Office, A V
Radha Govind Complex,  -- if
Kaikini Road, Karwar;3_Z"  2;   
Rep. By its Divishi-onai5lMgan'a.ger'  
Sri.S.G.Rane.    ~   '

...Appeilant.

(By Sri.N.R.Ki1pije1uir'*fo'r..iBi,iC";Sieietharama Rao, Advocate.)

AND:

1.   Narasimha Bhovi
'Agead  25_yi.ears,

Chi;--(3iri_sh Nsarasirnha Bhovi

 gfxged a,bio.i.1ti05 years,

   ":iKttrn"."~«KaVana Narasimha Bhovi

_,r~__Aged"iabout 02 years,

 2 & 3 being minors,
'.._I,{e.p.'by their mother the 13' respondent herein.

r""-.{MM'rP'v#"'""'«



2

4. Srnt.Sushee1a Rama Bhovi
Aged about 53 years,

5. Kum.Geetha Rama Bhovi
Aged about 24 years,

All are R/o. Itaguli,
Sirsi Taluk.

6. Sri. Roopesh B. Naika,  
Age: Major, 1

R/o. Neernalli Cross,
Huiekal Road, Sirsi. _ ,  

i  ,;.--Re_spVor}fd'ents.

(Smt.Vidya for K.Raghaven*dr_a Rad,' A'Cz\tVoc.ate,iifor  to
(R.6 M Notice Served.)

This  W.C. Act against the

judgment dates 'I8i/1/i2ti'Q8iii'paiS~s.e--d in WCA/SR/43/2007 on

the file of the°*«.LabVotir i~-,Office1' and Commissioner for
Wo--rk_men_»»'5fIorhpensa"t'1'o.n_,__gNorth Canara District, Karwar,

awiazfdiiriga evornpertsation of Rs.-£27,140/~ with interest @

 -v'1"hisi.44"axpii3:ea'i'i.i coming on for dictating judgment this

 C_.our't" made the following:

E



3
JUDGMENT

The present appeal is by the insurer opflhthe

Tractor and Trailer respectively bearing re_g’ist–r,at..ion-__”A_

Nos.KA–3l/T-386 and 387 owned byJresp’oncié;ii’~vlNs’oV.5.:i

namely Sri.Rupesh B. Naika. The a’ppe’_liaintii’i_n’su’re:fi:’hais~1..1

challenged in this appeal the legaE._iVty..V_andii’co_r1°eVct~nie’s:s”‘of the
order dated £8/l/2008 pass,-ed inpV.l’v”v’i{:i7f\,/S-R/43720-07/ion the

file of the Labour Officer W-i:,l’rl<r1}.eiiri5'_s.viC__ompensation

Commissioner, §:_Kan…nad«ai"' .D_i_sftrict, Karwar

(hereinafter re'fe'1~–r_ed to'i:as– n1is'si'0'i1er' for short).

2) i his – Vi order the learned
Commissioner dir’ec_:ted.ilthi’s appellant insurer to pay to the

re’spoin’die1iitiiNio’s.ll’~t_o 5 herein (respectively claimants No.1

to 5 before ‘ti:-e:”‘l.eariizle’d Commissioner) a total compensation

i”.~-oifi’R.s.4,2i7—-i_1»!-ll)/-“V’yvith interest thereon at the rate of 12%

the death of the deceased Narasimha Bovi the

lot; claimant No.l, father of claimant No.2 and 3,

(”’§-\”’\”#

son of claimant No.4 and brother of claimant No.5 before

the learned Commissioner in the said case.

3) Heard the arguments of Sri.N.R.Kuppel’ur_l’~.;lor

Sri.B.C.Seeth_ararn Rao, the learned counsel-:_:iio’r5.’.j[the’v…_l”.

appellant insurer and Srnt.\/idya, the_.l.earned”lcvouf;.5el

the respondent–clairnants. Respondent*.VN’o.i6lil the

the said Tractor and Trailer has~..fp§gmain.ed…ab.se_nti”gdesplite
receipt of notice of this appeal.

4) The learned counsel ford»:the._Vil’appe_llant insurer

strongly con:t:endsiitliaVt,’VVriVsl<,to.._the Loader employed by the
owner ofthe saidTracistor~a:i_d'"Tir'aliler was not covered under
the__ insurpapnlcea poli'c-yd' in/h_i:ch is marked as Ex.Rl and

therefor:e«.the_ learn-ed Commissioner was not justified in

on this appellant insurer to pay the

__"s-a_idUamount.. compensation to the claimants in the said

A

5

5) Per contra the learned counsel for the
respondent–clairnants strongly contends that a sum of

Rs.25/– has been collected by the appellant insurer under

the policy at Ex.R1 towards the risk to one

employed by the owner of the said Tractor aif1d,: ii

therefore the present appeal deserves to be”d.2i’snii.ss~e:d.

6) The factum of accid_e’nt, the death the
deceased as a result of the said acxci–de”pn.t,i”-the reiiiavti.orz’lship of

the deceased with the claiir_r1an~t,s5i;;’thiei.V”_»oiWnership and

insurance are all not in
dispute. Oniiiperusali of Ex.R1 insurance
policy, it could Schedule of Premium reads
0 V’ p ‘ …… _.

00.0.0′:~«iiiS’iC.}Vi.§’DULE or iPREMI’UM

B: T11) mrarsic 785.00

Premium for Trailer 375.00

0 .Cc.e1puls’ory ?A to Owner–DriVer 100.00

0 “iimouim 200000

employee 1 25.00
Loading on “FF Premium 1,160.00

Total Liability Premium Rs.2,445.00

(_,~__(\,.w-~\_,,.

7) Thus it is clear from the above contents of the

Schedule of Premium that an additional premium of

has been collected by the appellant insurer from_.’4’tlae

of the said Tractor and Trailer towards

employee. It is established by the:«.clia_i_niants_..Epthat

deceased was employed in the sai’dlc:.:i”ractlot*-
the owner thereof as the Loader as a
result of the injury i’rl:lv’ltill*.llev:..laceident that
occurred while Tractor and
Trailer. Ther’e’fo–1’ei of the learned counsel ‘for
the appellant irisurevr respect of the deceased
as””l’a:h..e._i.lsoader in the said Tractor and

Trailer”not;”‘coiv.ered under Ex.R.1 insurance policy

vi ‘cannot be aicce_pt’eé;1.e

Th_e”:.learned counsel for the appellant insurer

the word ’employee’ used in the schedule of

refers to the driver employed by the owner but not

(W1-*””‘.»’*-«~……».

to any other employee. This contention cannot be accepted

for the reason that another some of Rs.l00/- ha.s’*fb”ei_enV’

collected as additional premium in respect of tjhie ”

owner-driver.

9) The learned counsel for

cited the following decisions:

l) 2007 AIR SCW 728()_____lca_se.._»between _.%
United India Ifisjizjran-ee vs.
Serjerao and
0thefsv.’ ‘D it i l

2) 2007 A§E1″{:..:VVS«C\7§el 37s4..sasxeswween

vs. Brzj

3) EFAVC’ Case between
,_’f!\/evv __Inc1ii”d”~,A.ssurance Co. Ltd., vs.

2 5:4dr§i’esf4jKu’mari and others.

liIi\._ 1382 case between The
Manager, vs. Smt./Ikkawwa

__ A alnfothers.

o~§i5)l.Vl”iAIR 2004 sc 4338 case between
T. WNati0nal Insurance Co. Ltd, vs.

Chim/zamma and others.

r__§-“‘-¢*””‘-“‘-»..-=–~—-~\_:,

Suffice it to say that the principles laid down in the above

said decisions need not be discussed in detaii in viewj’o..f’f«t_h’c,

fact that risk in respect of one person employed ”

owner of the said Tractor and Trail.-e’r”i:«as ‘i.4beenf’-ctoyeriediifi

under EX.R.l insurance policy. Therefo’r_e;*.E am o’fAtht3~ Vi.4e’Wy ii

that the learned Commissioner””i’.h’as righi_tl”y_.’.1heldiii the
appellant insurer liable pay ainount of
Compensation to the re_sp0ndAe.t1t_–cVlaii’r1′;:an”t§&*..f.,’; ..

10) For the 3._rea;soins.viiaforeisaidf.tihe”‘p’resent appeal is

hereby merits. Whatever

amount is deposiiited insurer with this Court

in this apppepalikshall. iitransmitted to the learned

C9’–.(3::t1f[‘3iI3’_I.1satiiioini’Commissioner concerned for its
the claimants.

gal”

§UE®E


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.113 seconds.