Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Rajanna on 23 March, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
MFA No. 8249 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8249 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
TP HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE
KRISHI BHAVAN
6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURLU 560001
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
SRI. T N ADISESH
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAJANNA
S/O. CHIKKAIDEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD R2 HIS LR'S
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJA S 2. SMT. NINGAMMA
Location: AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF W/O. SRI. RAJANNA
KARNATAKA
R/AT KODIPURA VILLAGE
AGASANAPURA POST
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. M/S. KOMITLA SERVICES
10, ANNA STREET
CHERAN NAGAR
MYTHIRAPALAYAM
PUDUCHERI
-2-
MFA No. 8249 of 2019
TATTAN CHAVADI DISTRICT
PANDICHERY 605009.
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
KOMITLA SATYANARAYANA REDDY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GIRIMALLAIAH ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2:
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED: 23.03.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD D ATED:
11.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1151/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.13,15,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the liability fastened on it for payment of compensation of Rs.13,15,200/- for the death of Siddaramu, who was a cleaner in the insured vehicle which was a Bus.
2. It is the principal contention of the insurer that the evidence on record indicates that there were two drivers already traveling in the Bus and it's liability would be -3- MFA No. 8249 of 2019 covered only in respect of two drivers and not for the cleaner.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand contends that the policy indicates that the insurer collected a sum of Rs.100/- as premium and the policy also indicates that IMT.28 endorsement would be applicable.
4. IMT.28 of the India Motor Tariff Reads as follow:
"IMT.28. LEGAL LIABILITY TO PAID DRIVER AND/OR CONDUCTOR AND/OR CLEANER EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF INSURED VEHICLE (For all Classes of vehicles.) In consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 25/- notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer shall indemnify the insured against the insured's legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ,the Fatal -4- MFA No. 8249 of 2019 Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law and subsequent amendments of these Acts prior to the date of this Endorsement in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured herein and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent.
Provided always that (1) This Endorsement does not indemnify the insured in respect of any liability in cases where the insured holds or subsequently effects with any insurer or group of insurers a Policy of Insurance in respect of liability as herein defined for insured's general employees;
(2) the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and shall comply with all statutory obligations;
*(3) the insured shall keep record of the name of each paid driver conductor cleaner or persons employed in loading and/or unloading and the amount of wages and salaries and other earnings -5- MFA No. 8249 of 2019 paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the insurer to inspect such records on demand.
(4) in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of the insured no refund of the premium paid in respect of this Endorsement will be allowed.
Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of the Policy except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. *In case of Private cars/ motorised two wheelers (not used for hire or reward) delete this para."
5. It is thus, clear that if an IMT.28 endorsement is found on the policy of the insurance, the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation for the personal injury suffered to any paid driver, or a conductor or a cleaner could be attracted.
6. Since admittedly, a sum of Rs.100/- has been paid and IMT.28 endorsement has been made on the policy of -6- MFA No. 8249 of 2019 the insurance, it is clear that the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation for the death of Siddaramu, the cleaner.
7. Thus, there is no grounds to entertain the appeal is therefore, rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15