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




MFA No.29s5/zoos  ii


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.    ~   '


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


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.



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:



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



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’

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


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


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 ”


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.


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.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.139 seconds.