Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smt Mallamma on 13 March, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2009 (5) AIR KAR R 319, 2009 A I H C 3349, (2009) 4 TAC 108, (2009) 3 CURLR 444, (2009) 4 KANT LJ 531, (2010) 2 ACJ 1218, (2010) 4 ACC 138, (2009) 4 CURCC 196
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANG;é4§{;i31f§'E%'LT:j1? DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY 01? JM.ARCP§',"2f}.5§§: "T5: F: "
PRESENT I t % % V THE HQNBLE MR. JUSTIC§'§:_V:Kc.$Ri§iEfié}1:3$€. fi}'§G 5 THE HONBLE M32.
% .ffi{d4.E_f,__A_,;_'N(); k5a.4a?%a,F___§ao7 C NC) '%«M.%1=*i,.4;,, 1sr:>.k45s;saor% 2097 (we) %%%% jg m;3;=xA;--.m;. a351t_pg__goo7 C W 1!_a[;.F.1i'}-.l§Q. 634$ BE'm%§:E§:";« V " * M ?:--§E*:~B,RANCH Mzamaak, A :~::£«;w IISfI.}IA'ASSURANCE cc». L'i'D., £v;CTB1;H.I3:Nc}, KALPEFFA NORTH, 'im".§§A:3« i§.i$'1fI%'iG§, KERALA STATE, NQW I€}E:P;' {BY '§'T'S REGIONAL MANAGER,
-- THE 1'wEi%'§'i3.?"i1*€I}iA ASSURANCE CC). §;:m., Rgc3:Q2§AL Q§r'F'§€E, 2-3, UNI'I'Y B:}1::,1::>:NG, , }'aZ§E"?§EXE, P. KALENGA RAG RQAD, '-- _1i"3AI'_§fC»ALGRE -» 27.
= APPELLANT {BY SR} AN. EGQISHNASWAMY, ADVQCATE) AN{}:
3. SMT. MALLfiMMA, Cg/% accident occurred in the course of and out of empioyment and in the use of motor Vellicle.
Commissioner has assessed the wages of _ at the rate of Rs.4,0()()/ -- per mon_t_h,.
3. The insurer has filed avoid liability on tho. gI'01:1I1'.£:§:. " vthaig t1'ie"'~:%1s1;.:§ of the workmen in question A. the policy and also that.vtht~;:v_i;1co£iié /«» is on higher scage' 'a1:3S§:13c§;--.." _' 'dzewcredible proof of income add ' 3'3;
4';-._ ivsflbsiantial questions of law Wouki a,t*io*e*~«;fot*<:or1siLi1éi*.é§iion :
.__In flrie' context of fact statod above, whethor " _t1f1§: risk of docoasod workroom is covered _ * ,v'u;1dor the insurance policy issued by the _ % " '~ . ._ _a_§:1{';:*r:'1iaI3t.
{T ' -o§'»":7Ai'1€i:§1er the W133, CGII1i"IiiSSiOi1€i" $3 jusiifiefi if} amassing the income of tho workmem at R$,4,i3Gf;'a/~ oer month in the absence of crodibk: proof 'E' In tile: instant. case, the deceased w*orkm¢1i, _ a:*e obviously were not the inmates of the vek1ici<3__z3;'t't;§<1§:«.'tiii:x'§ % of a¢::cit§eI1t.. The deceased workmen were fafo-11;"
the lorry, and were quarrying %he:_-Asé1i1€i;,. 1 .' insurer does not incur Statutcry' liabiiitjf gthé > policy does not cuver the . v§70r}::f:11e1": ifl qlififitiol}. "
7. Sr; ;5*,.'N_. Swainjfi f11I"T}1€I' contended that in the abs§:1'i<';s:_ "'<)£'1-+.:A1*¢cii.':j§:'1e:_V}:ai*o<>.fV§:a:f3 income, the minimum Wages _'1;:re:sc1*ib e:i:'Shou1ci.__B€ taken. The mirairnuzn Wages prescribecffgjr, i'§3i6%3Bi period is Rs.Z?.,950/-- par V. A_ II1Offi§i1T1 fgfixi' the fi9;:L2.r¢ of work ix: question. ' of the proviso to Sec. 147(1) mandates 336: empiayee in a goods carziage shczuid 3ta€L§¥.:;7rfl}? cztxvaraé. Th»: expression u.' being carried in A ":L:Li%:§hicie' fifififi not be coflsisrued rigdly anti smicfiy, if dfine, it vmuid defeat the very abject and purpose of iegslafivs welfare paiicy. In the case of goods vehicie {ha loading anfi urziaadiitxg ef goods. is an integai par: of la the transport activity. The cozltentioxa {hag "
Wouid become liabie only when thc: employéé death] injury while traveliirzg in t}fiéV€ie}*:§C'l'e xx-fiz§iI:i_ absurd proposition. Since the Idading i:n}céLciii;5_>;' forms an integral and déiniiizzant 'the transport activity, the c>1'.'$>g*<%ir'1~:;11eI3 éttévfiding to ioading and ~;f%§'%;;{:'I'.11ded by rigid the expression 'being :f.;fl1fi':'":gf§$ifi€'I€"'~¥'§£}U1d also include the activit3;"'A_Qf} and not necessarily"
restxicted far. the :?pi.t't3;éLtic§i1s where the workmen is an V' .iIm-.%é'i:€;»_of "me véiiiasia at the time of the accident. Hence, __i;}*1Ve astfiizigéréi' i_j1'--.questi0n is in the course of and out /of in the use of meter vshicle. Tha i§:su1*€":'j :i;&3zn:::>: sazvaid the iiabiliizy, 3 v With regard £3 ixlmme, the ciaimanis have 135;':
_Mp£'<)d11ced credible proof cf the acting}. inmme.
fizerefsre, miz:i111um Wages of E-2s.2,'35G/- per merzth is:
be taken. $39/9 is be éaciuctefi. The racaknablfi wages %/ Wcauld be 50% of Wage, which would be Rs. 14? V' relevant factor in MFA 6048/07 is 226.3V8 .' .E£'f3§:x:§¢§{i§z."e; Q the claimants in MFA 6048/07 's§(${1ld'E:zavez¢1":;i:ifié§i_\t§'9£:1f;$7 cen1pensax.iem cvf Rs.3,33,919.50/JRS. 14?f5_=;; '{225.'s=é§)';%V " .10. The wages oijihe déc'<.§Vasé&::}..jwori{ina11":" i11 MFA 6850/O'? wouid be factor is 203.85. T1;c«;-gfgyre, % MFA 6850/{)7 would béy }€s.3,Df};€$--;?8:'f5_/~" Liéjs x i2"0'3[8§;. 1 gr: vf;}"1€: wages 0f' the Workman to ba c:;:1$idefea:§:V'at\.v"R$;14~;7;:'3/-. The raievané; factor is "E'1ie'«_n1ed§.m<':é;1é apinion discioses that workmen '3u:€:f3i§is§§;%. {ha aéisabiéiiy. Therefam, ihs ciaimani i:1 "«E&?iF5?g' %§3$:;a*7 is erxiitiad to §s.1,2?,976.9@/w X 215,91 X 4%; 2393,
12. 8:1 c:0mpeI1sati0n awaréed, {ha interest mv payable is 12% p.a., one month aft-:::* the accident tiii 42 5' v' V~tl"'§s:~f; V COH1p€f1Safi0B <31" 5 1?:
. payment. The compensation awarded shall _ to the claimants from the axnourafig in .. "i£*ixces§ 2 amozmt found if an}; after di'3bt: 1fséméI1:"
refunded to the: appellant.
Amy'