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
