Karnataka High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mahadeva S/O Appanna Dalawai on 11 November, 2020
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 11TH day of November 2020
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
MFA No.20591/2009 (WC)
BETWEEN
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM,
REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(By SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV.)
AND
1. MAHADEVA S/O APPANNA DALAWAI
R/O BARGI MUDHOLBAGALKOT
2. BASHETTAPPA S/O NINGAPPA ANGADI
R/O KATHRAKIBALAGA, TQ:BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. HARISH MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1)
MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
W.C.ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 24.09.2008 PASSED IN W.C. NF 123/2006 ON
THE FILE OF THE WORKMENs COMPENSATION
COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE
2
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,49,745/- WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 12% P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bagalkot, in W.C.NF.No.123/2006.
2. The petitioners filed the petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for having suffered accidental injuries on 04.01.2006 during the course of employment due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor- trailer.
3. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,745/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days from the 3 date of passing of the judgment. Being aggrieved, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the registration number of the tractor-trailer in question mentioned in the claim petition and also in the cross examination of claimant is different from that mentioned in the complaint as well as the charge sheet. Hence, he submits that the tractor-trailer in question was not involved in the accident. He further submits that the claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor in violation of Regulation 28 of the Road Regulation Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Hence, the insurer be saddled with liability to pay compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants justifies the award passed by the Commissioner but seeks for modification of the order passed by the Commissioner so far it relates to awarding 4 interest from 30 days from the date of judgment instead of from 30 days from the date of accident.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record.
7. It is not in dispute in the cause title of the claim petition filed by the claimants, the registration number of the tractor-trailer in question is mentioned correctly and corresponds with the registration number mentioned in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet. However, in the claim petition as well as in the cross examination, the claimant has mentioned the registration number of the tractor-trailer incorrectly. This alone will not disentitle the claimant from claiming compensation amount when admittedly the tractor-trailer in question was involved in the accident.
5
8. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of the accident, the claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor during the course of employment. Regulation 28 of the Rules clearly stipulates that the driver of the tractor shall not carry or allow any person to be carried on the mudguard of the tractor. The effect of the Regulation to Rules making any person traveling in the tractor apart from the driver is illegal and will be unauthorized passenger as held by the Division Bench of this Court in National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Bramaranbike and others reported in 2006 ACJ 671. Hence, it is held that the claimant as on the date of accident was traveling in violation of Regulation 28 of the Rules. However, the insurer is not absolved of the liability to pay compensation in favour of the claimant. The insurer has to satisfy the compensation amount awarded by the 6 Commissioner and then recover the same from the owner of the tractor in the same proceeding.
9. The Commissioner awarded compensation with interest at 12% from 30 days from the date of passing of the judgment instead of after 30 days from the date of accident.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is disposed of. The judgment and order passed by the Commissioner is modified. The insurer to satisfy the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner and then, recover the same from the owner of the tractor- trailer in the same proceeding and also the claimant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from 30 days from the date of accident instead of 30 days from the date of passing of the judgment.
Amount in deposit to be released in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1, subject to proper 7 identification. Difference amount of compensation to be deposited within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE KGK