Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager United India ... vs Smt Mangamma W/O Rangappa on 31 May, 2013
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY
MFA NO.5195/2007
C/W MFA NO.5196/2007, MFA NO.5192/2007,
MFA NO.5193/2007, MFA NO.5194/2007 (MV)
MFA NO.5195/2007:
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur and Gangavathi
Represented by its
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, P.B.No.53,
V.V. Sukhani Complex,
1st Floor, Gandhi Chowk,
Raichur-584101.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Yellamma D/o Basayya
Aged 14 years,
1st respondent is minor U/g of her
nature father Basayya
R/at Arkera Village,
2
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur.
2. Veeresh S/o Mallappa,
Major, R/at Maski,
Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur.
3. Bheemaraya
S/o Thimmanna,
Major,
R/at Buddinni village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur District.
4. Renjuka @ Laxmi Bai
W/o Ananda Surupur,
Major,
R/at Dhotihal Village,
Kushtagi Taluk,
Raichur District.
... Respondents
(Sri Basavaraj R. Math, and
Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, Advocates for R1
Sri Mallikarjun C Basareddy, Advocate for R3 and R4
Notice to R2 dispensed with vide order dtd.27.2.2013)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and
award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.78/03 on
the file of Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast Track
Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.
3
MFA NO.5196/2007:
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur and Gangavathi
Represented by its
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
P.B.No.53, V.V. Sukhani Complex,
1st Floor, Gandhi Chowk,
Raichur-584101.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Chandamma W/o Balayya
Aged 39 years,
R/at arkera Village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur.
2. Veeresh S/o Mallappa
Major, R/at Maski,
Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur.
3. Bheemaraya
S/o Thimmanna
Major,
R/at Buddinni Village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur District.
4
4. Renjuka @ Laxmi Bai,
W/o Ananda Surupur,
Major,
R/at Dhotihal village,
Kushtagi Taluk,
Raichur. District.
... Respondents
(Sri Basavaraj R. Math, and
Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, Advocates for R1
Sri Mallikarjun C Basareddy, Advocate for R3 and R4
Appeal against R2 dismissed vide order dtd.5.8.2010)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and
award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.79/03 on
the file of Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast Track
Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.
MFA NO.5192/2007:
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur and Gangavathi
Represented by its
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
P.B.No.53, V.V. Sukhani Complex,
1st Floor, Gandhi Chowk,
Raichur-584101.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
5
AND:
1. Mangamma W/o Rangappa
Aged 56 years,
R/at Arkera Village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur.
2. Veeresh S/o Mallappa,
Major, R/at Maski,
Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur.
3. Bheemaraya
S/o Thimmanna,
Major,
R/at Buddinni village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur District.
4. Renjuka @ Laxmi Bai
W/o Ananda Surupur,
Major,
R/at Dhotihal Village,
Kushtagi Taluk,
Raichur District.
... Respondents
(Sri Basavaraj R. Math, and
Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, Advocates for R1
Sri Mallikarjun C Basareddy, Advocate for R3 and R4
Appeal against R2 dismissed vide order dtd.5.8.2010)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and
award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.54/03 on
the file of Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
6
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.1,49,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
MFA NO.5193/2007:
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur and Gangavathi
Represented by its
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
P.B.No.53, V.V. Sukhani Complex,
1st Floor, Gandhi Chowk,
Raichur-584101.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Balamma W/o Bassayya
Aged 34 years,
R/at Arkera Village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur.
2. Veeresh S/o Mallappa,
Major, R/at Maski,
Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur.
7
3. Bheemaraya
S/o Thimmanna,
Major,
R/at Buddinni village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur District.
4. Renjuka @ Laxmi Bai
W/o Ananda Surupur,
Major,
R/at Dhotihal Village,
Kushtagi Taluk,
Raichur District.
... Respondents
(Sri Basavaraj R. Math, and
Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, Advocates for R1
Sri Mallikarjun C Basareddy, Advocate for R3 and R4
Appeal against R2 dismissed vide order dtd.5.8.2010)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and
award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.77/03 on
the file of Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
MFA NO.5194/2007:
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
8
Raichur and Gangavathi
Represented by its
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
P.B.No.53, V.V. Sukhani Complex,
1st Floor, Gandhi Chowk,
Raichur-584101.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shanthamma W/o Basavaraj
Aged 29 years,
R/at Arkera Village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur.
2. Veeresh S/o Mallappa,
Major, R/at Maski,
Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur.
3. Bheemaraya
S/o Thimmanna,
Major,
R/at Buddinni village,
Devadurga Taluk,
Raichur District.
4. Renjuka @ Laxmi Bai
W/o Ananda Surupur,
Major,
R/at Dhotihal Village,
9
Kushtagi Taluk,
Raichur District.
... Respondents
(Sri Basavaraj R. Math, and
Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, Advocates for R1
Sri Mallikarjun C Basareddy, Advocate for R3 and R4
Appeal against R2 dismissed vide order dtd.5.8.2010)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and
award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.77/03 on
the file of Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
These appeals coming on for admission, this day
the court delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5195/2007 is filed
under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment
and award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.78/03
on the file of the Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.
10
2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5196/2007 is filed
under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment
and award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.79/03
on the file of the Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.
3. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5192/2007 is filed
under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment
and award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.54/03
on the file of the Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.1,49,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
4. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5193/2007 is filed
under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment
and award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.76/03
on the file of the Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
11
Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
5. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5194/2007 is filed
under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment
and award dated 10.01.2007 passed in MVC No.77/03
on the file of the Presiding Officer, Member, MACT, Fast
Track Court II, Raichur, awarding a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
6. The common case of the claimants in all these
cases are as under:
That on 01.06.2002 at about 6.00 PM on
Shivanagi-Arakeri road, these claimants were returning
in a tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.SCZ-357-T-2570 after
attending their coolie work, respondent No.1 being
driver of the tractor-trailer drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and caused accident, as a result of
which, these claimants sustained injuries.
12
7. In all these cases respondent No.2 filed his written
statement denying the petition averments. Respondent
No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited filed
objection statement denying the accident and also
contending that the claimants being passengers in the
tractor-trailer, they are not entitled for compensation.
8. The finding of the Claims Tribunal at para-21
reads as under:
"21. So far as the liability of the insurance
company is concerned, it is admitted that the
tractor and trailer were insured with the
insurance company. But it is contended that
the tractor and trailer were insured under
agricultural package (farmers' package policy)
scheme and that the owners of the tractor
and trailer violated the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy by allowing the driver
of the tractor and trailer to carry passengers.
According to the insurance company, all the
passengers were unauthorized passengers in
the tractor and trailer. But the petitioners
have contended that they were travelling in
13
the tractor and trailer as agricultural coolies.
Their contention is supported by RW-1 the
owner of the tractor, who admitted in his
evidence that the petitioners were agricultural
coolies. Even though the insurance company
got examined its Administrative Officer as
RW-2, he has admitted that he has no
personal knowledge as to what purpose the
tractor was used at the time of accident.
Therefore, the evidence of the petitioners and
RW-1 remained unchallenged. No rebuttal
evidence is adduced by the insurance
company. It is needless to say that carrying
agricultural coolies for agricultural work
cannot be termed as violation of policy
conditions. Hence, I do not find any merit in
the contention raised by the insurance
company."
9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company preferred these Miscellaneous First Appeals,
challenging mainly on the liability. The learned counsel
for the appellant submitted as under:
14
The vehicle in question is a tractor-trailer. The
tractor-trailer is insured by means of a farmers' package
policy. This vehicle should be used only for insurer's
agricultural needs. In the instant case, the vehicle is
used for commercial purpose.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports
the impugned judgment and award. In support of his
contention, he relies on the decision reported in ILR
2011 KAR 4139 in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Maruthi and others. The learned
counsel for respondent No.1 draws the attention of this
Court to paras-31, 37 and 40 of the said decision, which
read as follows:
"31. By reading Sections 147 and 149, it is
clear that the Legislative intent was that the
insurer has to compulsorily cover all the risks
arising out of and use of motor vehicle and
the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with
that of insured. However, this is subject to
the limitations envisaged under Section 147
15
(1) (b). It is also clear that the coolies who are
employees carried in a goods vehicle are to be
compulsorily covered under Section 147(1)(b).
37. The wordings of the fully worded policy
makes it clear that the vehicle in question is a
goods vehicle. Therefore, the respondents
were justified in saying appellant cannot
plead other than what is stated in the policy.
If the general exception in the policy were to
exclude the liability of the insurer to cover the
coolies employed for loading and unloading
then the argument of the appellants was
justified. Though the fully worded policy
refers to the terms of contract between the
parties, IMT 7, 21, 24, 36 and 48, on perusal
of the same except IMT 36 none of the other
IMTs. are relevant. As a matter of fact IMT 7
and 48 do not find a place in the fully worded
policy. IMT 21 refers to exclusion of riots,
strikes and terrorism coverage. IMT 24 refers
to replacement of parts. When the very policy
is referred to as a special package policy,
unless the insured was fully made known the
exact terms of contract by including them in
16
the terms of policy, it is nothing but with-
holding necessary and important information
from the insured. Depending upon the user of
the vehicle whether for agricultural purpose or
for commercial purpose, the liability of the
insurer would be decided. When the intention
of the Legislation was to cover compulsorily
all the risk arising out of the use of the motor
vehicle and that the liability of the insurer is
co-extensive with that of the insured subject
to Section 147 (1) (b), coolies or employees are
compulsorily covered. Therefore, the
argument that Rule 100 (6) r/w Rule 226 of
the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules is
relevant is rejected and the same will not
authorise or permit the insurer to avoid the
liability.
40. The combination of tractor-trailer is
nothing short of a goods carriage. Therefore,
when once it is held as goods carriage
vehicle, by virtue of Section-II-1(1) of fully
worded policy and also provisions of Section
147, the claim of the claimants on hand is
covered. The claimants in the present case
17
have rightly approached the Workmen's
Commissioner and the Commissioner was
justified in holding that the injured claimants
were coolies under the owner viz., the
insured. In the present case, they were
carrying stones for constructing a ridge in the
land belonging to the insured so as to store
the water. This is nothing but part and parcel
of agricultural operations. The Claimants
were neither gratuitous passengers nor
persons who were travelling in the tractor-
trailer for the purpose other than agricultural
operations. Looking to the avocation of the
claimants, the computation of the
compensation by the Commissioner is just
and proper. Viewed from any angle, we do
not find any good ground to interfere with the
awards of the Commissioner. Therefore the
claimants in the present case were rightly
held as covered under Ex.R-2 policy."
11. RW-2 is the Administrative Officer of the United
India Insurance Company Limited. He has deposed that
he was working as an Administrative Officer with the
18
United India Insurance Company Limited, Raichur
Branch for past 20 years. He knows the facts of the
case. The tractor-trailer involved in this case was
insured with their Company and the insurance was
effective and in force on the date of accident. The policy
is agricultural (Farmers' Package Policy) meant for
agricultural purpose. He has also stated that the
insurance does not cover the coolies. During his cross-
examination he has stated that he has no personal
knowledge as to for what purpose the tractor was being
used on the date and time of accident.
12. The word 'package' means a deal in which
separate items are presented together as a unit. In the
instant case the word 'farm' indicates live stock, growing
or rearing of some particular type of fruit, animal, or
fish, to cultivate land, to rear animals or fish on a farm,
to do agricultural work as a way of life. All these
activities cover under the heading 'farm'. In the instant
19
case the policy issued is a farmers' package policy. In
other words, several items were covered under this
package policy of the farmer. The word 'farm' has got
very wide meaning which covers different activities.
Farmer is the person who owns or manages a farm. In
the instant case, the claimants have stated that they
had gone to the coolie work of canal at Shivanagi village.
After finishing their work they were returning to their
village in a tractor-trailer belonging to respondent Nos.2
and 3.
13. In the chief examination of Bheemaraya he states
that he is the owner of tractor-trailer bearing
Reg.No.SCZ-357. That on 01.06.2002 his tractor met
with an accident, due to the ditch on the road. During
his examination, he clearly admits that on the date of
the accident, Mangamma, Hanumanthi, Basamma,
Balamma, Yellamma, Shantamma were coolies. They
were returning in the tractor-trailer after attending the
20
coolie work. The claimants have stated in their entire
evidence that they went to attend coolie work in the
canal.
14. The word 'canal' means an artificial waterway
constructed for navigation or irrigation. Since the
coolies went for the purpose of making a waterway to
the agricultural land, it can be inferred that the persons
who traveled in the tractor-trailer were involved in the
agricultural activities.
15. Therefore, the coolies who were travelling in the
tractor-trailer after attending their coolie work, making
a water way to the irrigated land for irrigation purpose
can be said that they were agricultural coolies. Taking
into consideration the principles laid down in the
judgment referred supra, wherein the division bench of
this Court has held that the coolies in a tractor and
trailer are to be covered by the Insurance company and
they perform the activity of agriculture and also
21
following the principles of the decision of co-ordinate
bench of this Court reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 872
(KAR.) in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Smt. Renuka & Ors. Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.
147 (5) - Liability of insurer to compensate - coolie in a
tractor-trailer died due to accident - Insurer contending
that policy covers risk of only 'one employee' who is
driver - Also coolie not permitted to be carried in vehicle
- Held, employee may be a coolie and not necessarily
driver - Insurer bound to discharge liability covered by
policy - Cannot avoid same saying risk of driver could
not have been covered, I am of the opinion that the
judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal
does not suffer from any infirmity and it is sound and
proper.
16. In view of the above discussion, I pass the
following:
22
ORDER
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos.5195/2007, 5196/2007, 5192/2007, 5193/2007 and 5194/2007 are dismissed.
Amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Claims Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk