The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sakkubai W/O Pandith Mali on 31 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sakkubai W/O Pandith Mali on 31 July, 2008

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH CCJURT OF KARNATAKA CERCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA EATED THIS THE 31" DAY or JULY zooayl BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUS1'§C§'3..3A_WAE§"E5-ﬁg?-§:I'i'v£ - M.F.A. NO. 3733;'2o'as BETWEEN:

Arm:

THE NEW ENDIA ASSURA.NCE._CQ LTD BRANCH AT Bi3A?i.~.3..R, Sh' MANAGER. REGIONAL QFFICE, » N.9;2~I£?-, ;ur<:-:mf BUILDING ANNEXE, rvszssxow RQAE>f," :

BANGALGRE56G,ﬁ2?- % 

A % Ak    APPELLANT

(sax vekaaesa L :s.z#;a»?m,:g, 'ADV. ) *i.sAK:-<_UBAI "w,:,Q.A PANDITH MALI AGEI)A_BOUT 43 YEARS, RE S;IE)ING._AT Ci-iA9ACHANA, INBI TALUK, E~:1.jé.9U!?g*-£3IsTRIcT H£aNAVui3'!"4ANTHA SIG PANDITH MALE MAJQR, STUDENT, RE$IDENG AT CHADACHANA, INDI TALUK, ' "' «.,. 'BIJAPU R DISTRICT & SURESH sic: ?AF\i9ITi-i MALE AGED ABQUT 2? YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT CHADACHIEKNA. IND} TALUK.

BIJAPUR DISTRICT $2:

4 RAZAK Sfﬁ VITTOABA SHINDE MAJOR, BUSENESSMEN, R1' 0 SUSALADA, JATTA TALEK, SANGLI BISTRICT, MA§~§ARA$HTRA (SR1 'mesa VJVEAMABAFUR, .i3.ﬂ5A?,A.FOi?. '§§;§, 'fra R3L'A:§3L sax NAGARA} DAMGDAR, AEV_§'*--Ef3R R4)' A Q = :1=x::e='-_ THIS iVi.z'-'-'.A. IS F'1L'E537.U/5 '.36-fi1)=.(A) AND (AA) or w.<:. ACT AGAINST we %kJ:..r::m:ssa'r&A&L Arm AWARD aATsD:24.2.2ce.s ?ASSi:"£)--.fEN"'1'y:'CA:E3R-'Z61/2002 are THE ms :3? '¥'HE,U'xBC2-UR=:_OEFI€ZE§2 'Ah_iQ_C§3MMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN3. '-CG??i'?.ENvS;§_TIQi5i,__4-- sassmwsxom-1, BIJAPUR, Awmzrwmc: CCiM§3ENSA7§I.£3'?4....,DF._ as. 1,59,44o/- wms zmeaasféf 22.95 %A:4e * .D_IRE.£"T£NG THE APPELLANT Haeem TO"E>EPOSi'.{i" THE-3 SAME;""

THE;%'Ap?EAL'j$:or4"z§é+2?on FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAV, 'me CQUﬁT DE£JI_'VE.REEv THE FOLLOWING ' L' A' ..... 3u§<5MENT ivaéﬁbeai is by the imurer aéairzst the award in w.¢;zis§.ié6~:%Z2ba2 esated 24-92-2905 by the commissioner far41'\¢*sf<'§ir$:_<::9r9:xens' Cemnerssatioh, Sub-Divisicn E, Bijapur, VA éjvs2é:%.($inVﬁ3 Rs.1,59,440.r'-- to the ciaimants.

2. The reievarzt facts are:

3» VJ one Panaitiz Maii, was an empisyee sf.'.;fesst?sd}'er:t Ne.-'1; --Raaa3<, as a csiiie to mad and unioee' i,s-2:VV:ee:1"'itc-tiy bearing resistratierz Ne. MH-10 i $4666.22 fewﬁ'iie'V:vheVV:w--e's Em V' such duty, the vehicie was inife£_v:c-stir'1ttp'i'se't-:::'«. accident, due to which he saffeted in5'u:ies--..af::dV"'sVi;iécu'¥'nbed" V to the same. The resp_endents:..':--te-»2_3 ciaifrxénevfte be the dependants of the victim, sauoht csrnpehsatiea .1.F:«:«:ef-tprueitCsﬁ§:?1f';iss§e't*sV'et cf Workmens' CGﬂT§€ﬁSaf55i"£1"«."ii:---'1V' ' t A' _ '_AItAt7tsas_ by; ttse insurer' contending that the assessed was not an emslayee sf rest:-f::"sveent gfhwey further contended that the V":nsVi}'rariée ﬁciley isssetd in rest-ect sf vehicie in question was naxje .i:.ff-a trerson by name Shivaie. The insurance psii-av mtasuea for the tzeried tram 03-12-2901 to 02-12- vv..-Zﬁuring this period the vehicle was said and A -tfansferred by Shivaie in the name at resiscrsdent No.4 - ..._Ra2ak. But, the seiicy of insurance was transferred to the V' name sf resaondent Next - Razak oniy of: 26-36-2902. (93;

4. Referring te these dates they centee'd"V'V'st'_§jee't'es the accident had eceurred cm 16-Q6-2_9..0zW~:.heferethe! insurance poiicry was transferred ﬁe th:e':yeree'¥ef ¥sie.4 -- Rezak, the erneioyeesef reseeheent.'Ne..V4 were not ceveree'. Accerdi'ﬁe:'te_ them;r'E;.V?'!e.':';;§i'¥hiit3i ef eeetreet ef emeieymehfsses theveeeeesee and fermer ewner. They deceased was ezTIﬁieYee of res'r;e7:1Ve'er:t Since, he was met eh emhievee fshivaie, the insurance iiahility in discharge the ewardf' 4' V V. x L4"'Fa.r*tr:er« if".ish"'e%se crzmteraciee that the eeceesee 'xv"*--.Per:§s'§ss3--.e.jvie«§ié weshvhbf eh ernrzioyee cf ressivcmsent Ne.4 --

Rezé'i< 'h%ee.§f&_1es ehiv a passenger aiehe with others when thAe.frehieiee'rr:'et with an accident. But, the respehdeht No.4 Rees}? has her eisputee that Peheith Maii was his V' ' ' eizeyee.

6. Ceheieerine these fscters the Commissioner for Werkmerss' Cempehseticm rejected the defence ef the insurance company and eiiowed the eiaim. This §1s"va:sfse"i--Sed in this appeei.

7. 2 have bestowed my serieus_..ee'ﬁ'ee?e:::£0 amends se urged.

8. It is not in disgsute tiie?:v_ i:he -.aiei*%:i;ei, e'_v,'. at'; eeerina reoistratien No. MH-152'£_ ﬁ.-66§V2'-*.afesV':irereived in a meter vehicie accidee:i_"~:.en ane'AAe}as vaiidiy' insured by the a_r_.)li3&i§eE'i'}T§_$_i'i--tZi .e_Veerti'fiee€ev«.ef insurance has been issued e_sfe;e.i1L;'ise"eAu%'§ti"er e're--xtisio:1s of Sectien 147 ef the:'z.Metc::*.VV\?e'f;ieie._'ﬁ;e§;"'--. The validity' of the insurance posicy free's93¥212%422eo};1eVto 02-12-2002 is aise not if:

2 The has eecurred on 16~06-2602 is aiso eat in __ Frem this, it is tiear that the insurance was v.e'iTi.--ds'eVs :'e'r::..t'i§'e'V..dete ef accident in which the Pendith Mei:

«V suffefe::§jrij£iVries ant; succumbed te the same. 9:' The euestien is as be whether he was an Aejnﬁeieyee ef the ewner insured er was 3 eratuitous V' "eessenger. This issue seeds no further consieeratier: as an the meteriei evideece pieced by the cieéments and the clear 5% edmissien by the reepeﬁcierxt No.4 ~ Rezek that i=«'a_r:r;iV_:t.t §_~rr"gaii was his empieyee empieyed te Eoae and uriiead the vehicie in question, the Ce:fnt11i_ssieeer'*%{ae re¢a:;re§.ed*. ﬁndine in favour ef ciaiments ee»seﬁ::"eﬁ"VIterf'e;At appareciatier: effects. ' ' V iii. New, we ijave'AV---te"L_v--eeee__ the"--effe:::t cf his empieymerzt under feseen'deeié.t:iv Rezak. The eppeiiants' cont.ei";ti_en e _e veife.V_ifV'~he.V"%'e an erepiovee of respendent. 4i"v£".*::1_451:~L.§..r;Re:ie5g;'--he=.wee zjeeen emeéeyee ef the erieieeei"%'e'wee§ eff"tﬁ'e~.'j.'vehéei'e;' whe had ebteined the Eneurae'ce'" In ether wares, the ceﬁteetieeef theV'§--_eeu_%e'e'%;e cereeeny is that eriginaiiy erze evieer----{'%:1sured but deceasee was net his es accident had occurred befere the vehicie 'eée»e"§:rerjs12'e':fred te the name of reseendent No.4 --- Razak, there he iiebiﬁiy' cf the iﬁsurer.

A 11. There ﬁe he diseute er: the fact that Shiveie was he the emeiever of ihe deceasee Feneiti': Meii. But, the 'cententien ef the insurance cempeny that in View of the *'-J transfer m' poiicy cmiy cm 26-G6-2002, decea$Eefd._:'_*s§ras ccvered under paiicy rseecis to 'ma rejected f€):%----f%.:f§é'A'fé3§'§.$ﬁi'va§ VGESGRSI

1) {A} i-.._..4 Issuance cf insurance pciic'§gbe:§'ng f1u"ri~:i;_%er £i1é"'A::tA 'e~'::r_.6 trarmfer cf such paﬁcyi tﬁé-ﬂame='§i°'._j;:-:rvc;§p_§;=:r:t§véV:* raurchasar being iecaiiy:ﬁn.:-ﬁ§f:'e1i$sit§fé the said poiicy is re-»;ros<ed%L%%%;z§~.«%a'% va;4:d%a:y%%%sfthe poncy wiii be retmspectisxe freﬁ3'ti§e:VdaVte if was issued:

The c;ds11;ia'iiy_;!§aVs"'réiséé ':10 quaticns anti tfazasféré-;ciV ;§'s§.3 hf} the name cf ércspective :3ii2':;_hasenViia:%ii2--zé§_y';..}'e3bondent Na.4 -- Razak; , -The §5i§+:gy'u:5déLi§€édiy is its carver the risk arising by BET§i-:= Ci?A.§{Ei*1§£';fé';""

§f;ev:'.?%njury causeé to the deceased is by use of \I»'f;i2h~§CV5'£§'=~2' énﬁ whith was ccvered under vaiid insurahce i")v€:_§§':<y, fﬁé ﬁefence as urged dczes mrt survive: Had the insurance company deciirned ta transfer the maiity the piea was acceptabie, but when the trarmfer cf psiicv was effecﬁed it covering use af the vehicie (31% any ciaim arising therefrom between th:é;._t:sE1a 'r:uéfé.féree and ihe empicyee, is ccvered under the'ﬁ§¥iC)r;

12. For these reasons, I:=s:i:': l"t{?«t:' with the juééement §mi3u;3ﬁ'e-ti, i~V1"&:_1'ée,V tiT?: e ' being dewid sf merits, it is acééﬁjiingiy $6;-:sr'r;u:iTsi$5&€iV.Vfg

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court