Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager United India ... vs Smt Mallamma W/O Late Lachamanna on 4 July, 2012
Author: B.S.Indrakala
Bench: B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
M.F.A. NO. 131 OF 2007 (WC)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.132 OF 2007 (WC)
AND
M.F.A.NO.130 OF 2007 (WC)
( IN M.F.A.NO.131 OF 2007 )
BETWEEN :
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, GANDHI CHOWK,
RAICHUR-584 101.
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE )
AND :
1. SMT. MALLAMMA,
W/O LATE LACHAMANNA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
1
2
R/O GOGAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEODURGA,
DIST.RAICHUR.
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O SHIVANANDAREDDY,
AGE : MAJOR,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOGAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEODURGA,
DIST.RAICHUR.
3. SANNA ERANAGOUDA,
S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE : MAJOR,
OCCU : AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIRAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST.RAICHUR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADV. FOR R-1 AND
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3 )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED : 27-10-2006 PASSED IN CASE
NO.LAC/WCA/RCR-63/2006 N THE FILE OF THE ASST.
LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, GULBARGA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,86,615/- WITH INTEREST @ 12%
P.A. AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO DEPOSIT
THE SAME.
2
3
( IN M.F.A.NO.132 OF 2007 )
BETWEEN :
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, GANDHI CHOWK,
RAICHUR-584 101.
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE )
AND :
1. SMT. LAKSHMI,
W/O LATE MALLAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O HIRERAYAKUMPI VILLAGE,
TQ: DEODURGA,
DIST.RAICHUR.
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O SHIVANANDAREDDY,
AGE : MAJOR,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOGAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEODURGA,
DIST.RAICHUR.
3. SANNA ERANAGOUDA,
S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE : MAJOR,
OCCU : AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIRAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST.RAICHUR.
... RESPONDENTS
3
4
(BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADV. FOR R-1 AND
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3 )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED : 27-10-2006 PASSED IN CASE
NO.LAC/WCA/RCR-64/2006 N THE FILE OF THE ASST.
LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, GULBARGA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,60,459/- WITH INTEREST @ 12%
P.A. AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO DEPOSIT
THE SAME.
( IN M.F.A.NO.130 OF 2007 )
BETWEEN :
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, GANDHI CHOWK,
RAICHUR-584 101.
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE )
AND :
1. SMT. GUNDAMMA
W/O LATE BASAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC : COOLIE R/O GOGAL VILLAGE
TQ: DEODURGA,
4
5
DIST.RAICHUR.
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O SHIVANANDAREDDY,
AGE : MAJOR,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOGAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEODURGA,
DIST.RAICHUR.
3. SANNA ERANAGOUDA,
S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE : MAJOR,
OCCU : AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIRAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST.RAICHUR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADV. FOR R-1 AND
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3 )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED : 27-10-2006 PASSED IN CASE
NO.LAC/WCA/RCR-41/2006 N THE FILE OF THE ASST.
LABOUR COMM ISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, GULBARGA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,28,375/- WITH INTEREST @ 12%
P.A. AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO DEPOSIT
THE SAME.
These appeals coming on for final hearing this day, the
court delivered the following;
5
6
JUDGMENT
These three appeals are filed by the appellant insurance-company challenging the award passed in common in ALC:WCA:RCR-41, 63 and 64 of 2006, dated : 27-10-2006, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Gulbarga, under which, all the three claimants who had sought compensation on account of death of their respective husband in the alleged accident are awarded compensation and the appellant insurance company is made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant insurance company, in all the three appeals though urged several points, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, for the following reasons.
(a) The labourers travelling in the trailer are not covered under the policy;6 7
(b) Subsequent to the alleged accident, vehicle in question owned by respondent No.2 was transferred in favour of 3rd respondent and as such there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the 3rd respondent and deceased etc.,
3. On facts, it is seen that, all the three deceased were working as labourers under respondent no.3 and they were so working in the tractor owned by the respondent no.2, which only concludes that the deceased were working only under single employer and not under two employers as contended by the appellant. Further on perusal of impugned order, it is seen that the alleged accident occurred during the course of employment on 25-4-2005.
4. With regard to the contention of the counsel for the appellant that such labourers working in the trailer were not covered under the policy, it is seen that in a decision reported in ILR 2011 KAR 4139, in the case of National 7 8 Insurance Company Limited vs. Sri Maruthi and Others. It is observed as here under :-
"WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 -
SECTION 30(1) - Accident during the course of employment - Claimants claimed to be the coolies travelling in Tractor-Trailer, sustained injuries due to accident - Claim Petition - Finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner as the Tractor-Trailer was a goods vehicle meant for carrying agricultural operations and the claimants being coolies under the owner having met with an accident, sustained injuries, insurer is liable to compensate the injured - Award - Appealed against by the Insurer - Definition of "Tractor" & "Trailer" - "Motor Vehicle" - "Goods" & "Goods Carriage" - Discussed - HELD, 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(a) 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 have rightly approached the Workmen's Commissioner and the Commissioner 8 9 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. - FURTHER HELD, 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. - By reading Sections 147 and 9 10 149, 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(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). - (1) MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 SECTIONS 147, 149 - LEGISLATIVE INTENT UNDER (2) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 -
SECTION 2(44) DEFINITION OF TRACTOR -
SECTION 2(46) DEFINITION OF TRAILER -
SECTION 2(28) - MOTOR VEHICLE - SECTIONS 2(13) & 2(14) - "GOODS" "GOODS CARRIAGE" - SECTION 6 - POLICIES LIABILITY ONLY POLICY -
PACKAGE POLICY DISCUSSED . (emphasis
supplied)"
5. Similarly in another decision reported in 2011 (1) KCCR 341 (DB) in the case of Mounesh .Vs. Thimmanna and Others., it is observed as hereunder.
"WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 -
Section 3 - Compensation - Liability for, - Motor 10 11 Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 2(14) - Goods Carriage
- Meaning of,-Whether the appellant/Workman herein, is entitled to compensation?- Held, yes- Since, the appellant/Workman herein, was a loader attached to the tractor/trailer of the respondent no.2, herein which was used for transportation of agricultural produce and other goods, would be very much a goods vehicle and would also be a goods carriage, within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which event, the risk of workmen/loader of the tractor/trailer, is to be necessarily covered under Section 147, as an Act Policy - And, the insurer herein is liable for payment of entire compensation to the Workman/appellant herein."
6. In view of the ratio laid down in the above two decisions, it is seen that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the policy does not cover the labourers travelling in the said tractor-trailer is negatived.
7. Admittedly, the trailer is purchased by respondent no.2 from respondentno.3 much earlier to the date of accident 11 12 and as such he continued to be the owner of both tractor and trailer as on the date of accident.
8. The contention urged by appellant insurance company that as policy was not transferred, insurance company is not liable to indemnify subsequent purchaser is also negatived in view of decision rendered and reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 149, in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Ors., .Vs. Shakuntala and Ors., and wherein it is observed as hereunder.
"(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sec. 166 - Liability of payment of compensation amount - Vehicle involved in an accident was sold and possession was given to purchaser-Despite the sale, the change of ownership of the vehicle was not entered in its certificate of registration - Policy was taken in the name of the earlier owner of the vehicle - Tribunal held that purchaser alone was liable for payment of the compensation - Legality of - Earlier owner, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle was liable for payment-Since insurance policy was taken 12 13 out in his name the claim will be shifted to the Insurer-Held : insurance company is directed to make full payment of the compensation amount.
(B) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Sec.2 (30), 50, 157 and 166 - Compensation - Liability of payment
- Transfer of vehicle - Earlier owner, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner is liable for payment of the compensation amount - The truck involved in one accident was sold - Despite the sale, the change of ownership of the vehicle was not entered in its certificate of registration-Policy was taken in the name of the earlier owner of the truck-Transferee, the original owner of the truck and insurance company were impleaded as respondents. Both the Tribunal and the High Court held that purchaser alone was liable for payment-Legality of - So long as the name of the earlier owner continues in RTO records, he remains liable to make payment - Since Insurance policy was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurance-Held : Insurance company is directed to make full payment of the compensation amount."13 14
9. Hence, all the contentions urged by the appellant insurance company to exonerate its liability to indemnify the owner is negatived.
10. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
11. The amount in deposit may be transferred to Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Gulbarga for disbursement.
12. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SGS 14