Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ishwarappa S/O Mahagundappa Niralagi on 22 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
MFA No. 22627 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22627 OF 2011 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD,
REP: BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,ANKOLA ARCADE,
DHARWAD,REP: BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Digitally
signed by
...APPELLANT
SAMREEN
SAMREEN
AYUB (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23
16:28:21
AND:
+0530
1. SRI. ISHWARAPPA S/O MAHAGUNDAPPA NIRALAGI
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O MADALAGERI, TQ:
RON, DIST: GADAG,
2. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O DEVAPPA KOLIYAVAR
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKIKOPPA,
TQ: NARAGUND,DIST: GADAG, (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
NO. KA-26/T-3014/3015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHGOUDA L LINGANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMENS
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD:10.03.2011 PASSED IN WCA:F NO:24/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE LABOUR OFFICER CUM COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS
COMPENSATION GADAG DISTRICT GADAG, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,54,160/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
MFA No. 22627 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Santoshgouda L Lingangoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant.
2. Respondent No.2 - owner though served with notice of the appeal, remained unrepresented.
3. Appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in WCA.F.No.24/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Gadag (for short, 'CWC').
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of this case are as under:
Sri.Ishwarappa being the husband and dependant of Smt.Shankravva laid a claim under the provisions of Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of accidental death of Shankravva.
5. Claim petition averments further reveal that Shankravva was working as a coolie under respondent -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330 MFA No. 22627 of 2011 No.1 involving a tractor and trailer unit bearing No.KA- 26/T-3014 and 3015 on the unfortunate day namely 08.02.2003 at about 3.00 p.m. when the tractor and trailer unit was attached to a grain pealing machine and when said work was under progress, the saree worn by Shankravva accidentally got into contact with the pully of the engine of tractor and she died an accidental death.
6. Claimant being the husband laid a claim for awarding suitable compensation.
7. Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary written statement. While respondent No.1 - owner of tractor and trailer unit admitted the incident including employer and employee relationship, Insurance Company denied its liability.
8. Evidence was recorded by the learned CWC after raising necessary issues and based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned CWC -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330 MFA No. 22627 of 2011 allowed the claim petition partly in a sum of Rs.2,54,160/- and saddled liability on the Insurance Company.
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Insurance Company is in appeal.
10. Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of a victim of accident when the tractor is attached to any other agricultural implement or equipment. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the adjudged compensation as there is breach of policy condition.
11. In support of his argument, he placed on record, the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gadhilingappa and Others vs. K.Guleppa and Others in MFA Crob.No.100001/2016 and connected mattes decided on 20.04.2021, wherein it is held as under:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330 MFA No. 22627 of 2011 "34. The question Nos (ii) and (iii) relate to the persons who are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines or any other instrument/equipment attached to a tractor. The question is whether they can be construed as employees so as to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Considering the definition of 'trailer' which we have already quoted above, a ploughing or a crushing machine attached to a tractor is not a trailer. The definition of 'semi- trailer' contained under sub-section (39) of Section 2 makes it very clear that a 'semi-trailer' is not a trailer. A semi-trailer means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-
imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. Therefore, every instrument including ploughing or crushing machine attached to a tractor will not necessarily be a trailer. At highest, it can be a semi-trailer. Even assuming that the said two categories of equipments are semi-trailers, the same are not the motor vehicle covered by sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act. Since a semi-trailer is not a motor vehicle, the provisions of Section 147 of the M.V. Act will not apply to it. Chapter-XI deals with the insurance of motor vehicles and, therefore, even -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330 MFA No. 22627 of 2011 the provision of Section 147 of the M.V. Act deals with insurance of motor vehicles. Even assuming that it is an attachment to the tractor, it is not required to be covered by a statutory policy of insurance as such attachments are not motor vehicles. In view of sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause
(i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the liability of employees working on such instruments like ploughing or crushing machine attached to a tractor is not required to be covered by a policy of insurance in respect of a tractor issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act.
12. Per contra, Sri.Santoshgouda L Lingangoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant supports the impugned judgment.
13. This Court bestowed its attention to the material on record meticulously in the light of the arguments put forth by the parties; especially the principles of law enunciated in paragraph No.34 of Gadhilingappa's case supra.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330 MFA No. 22627 of 2011
14. Admittedly, as on the date of accident, even as per the claim petition averments, there was an attachment to the tractor for separating grains from maize.
15. PW.2, namely, Sumitra is an eyewitness to the incident. She has stated that the deceased Shankravva was removing the wastage part from maize after the grains were separated with the help of machine attached to the tractor. When she was so doing the work, accidentally her saree and hairs got into contact with the pulley of tractor engine and she sustained grievous injuries and died.
16. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of Insurance Company that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the accidental death of Shankravva cannot be countenanced in law as it is not an attachment that has been involved in the accidental death of Shankravva, but it is the pulley of engine of tractor that has been responsible for the accidental death of Shankravva.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330 MFA No. 22627 of 2011
17. Accordingly, the principles of law enunciated in Gadhilingappa's case supra are not applicable to the case on hand on the factual aspects.
18. No other points are urged on behalf of Insurance Company to avoid the liability.
19. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40