Karnataka High Court
Jyoti And Ors vs Valuboju Srinivas And Ors on 30 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
MFA No. 200563 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200563 OF 2020 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. JYOTI W/O LATE TIPPANNA,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. VISHAL S/O LATE TIPPANNA
AGE: 04 YEARS,
MINOR U/G HIS
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 JYATAMMA.
3. MAHADEVI W/O BABURAO
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
ALL ARE R/O: VILLAGE FATMAPUR,
by RENUKA TQ: HUMNABAD,
Location: HIGH DIST: BIDAR,
COURT OF NOW AT NIDWANCHA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
TQ: & DIST: BIDAR-584102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VALUBOJU SRINIVAS
S/O JAGANNATH CHORI,
AGE: MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
MFA No. 200563 of 2020
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O: SBH COLONY, ALIPUR,
TQ: ZAHIRABAD,
DIST: SANGAREDDY,
DIST: MEDAK TS.-502220.
2. MR. SAKARI DHIRAVATH
S/O RAMKOTI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO. 2-56,
KALYANPALLE MIRIYAL HUDA,
NALGONDA,
DIST: NALGONDA T.S.-508001.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO. 202/B, 2ND FLOOR
MANANDA TOWERS
AT 7-1-59/2 AND 59/6 AMEERPETH,
HYDERABAD T.S.-500016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED-31.08.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BIDAR IN ECA NO.19/2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
MFA No. 200563 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the order passed in a claim proceedings initiated under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 insofar as it relates to exonerating the insurer from liability and making the owner of the tractor liable.
2. It is the case of the claimants that an accident occurred when the deceased was on the road and trying to remove the airlock to ensure the supply of diesel to the engine, when the tractor had stalled and was on the road. It was the case of the claimants that while he was in the process of removing the airlock, the driver of the tractor started the vehicle and the vehicle suddenly jumped and as a result, the deceased was thrown on the road and the wheel of the tractor ran over him.
3. It is therefore clear from the averments in the claim petition itself that the accident occurred when the deceased was on the road and the same was essentially an -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456 MFA No. 200563 of 2020 accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle i.e., the tractor. In such an event, the question of the Insurer contending that the deceased was not traveling in the tractor and he was also not permitted to travel in the tractor and therefore, they were to be exonerated from the liability, cannot be accepted.
4. The other argument advanced by the insurer that the charge-sheet indicated that the driver of the tractor did not possess a driving licence and therefore, the insurance company could not be liable, cannot also be accepted since, in such an event, it would be the insurer to satisfy the compensation first and thereafter, proceed to initiate recovery proceedings against the owner of the offending vehicle, who permitted the vehicle to be driven by a person who was not authorised to drive the vehicle.
5. In fact, according to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.202001 of 2016, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmail Singh @ Gurmer @ Gurnal Singh vs. Bajaj -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456 MFA No. 200563 of 2020 Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and another, in Civil Appeal No(s).12065 of 2018 disposed of on 13.12.2018, has also taken the view that the insurance company should pay and then proceed to recover.
6. The reliance placed on the Division Bench ruling in MFA No.6154 of 2019 cannot also be of any assistance since another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.200759 of 2021 has stated that the said judgment of the Division Bench would have no application in light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.
7. In the result, the appeal will have to be allowed insofar as it relates to exoneration of liability of the insurer and it will have to be ordered that the insurer would be liable to satisfy the compensation and thereafter proceed -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456 MFA No. 200563 of 2020 to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
8. The impugned judgment of the Trial Court is modified accordingly.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent.
10. Sri.Sudarshan M., learned counsel, is permitted to file vakalat for respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks.
11. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of in view of the disposal of the appeal.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22