Karnataka High Court
The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Suresh on 10 February, 2012
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
applying sudden brake, the claimantlifell
and sustained grievous injuriessto..his left leg an€l"oth.e_r paiftsllofl' ,
the body. Immediately he 'shifted"-to Harihara
Government hospital for taken
treatment with one who is an
orthopedic claimant has
contended that wages of Rs.lOO/-- and
batta about 35 years as on
the datelofuthel of fracture of his left leg,
the cléimantlllcontendsithatl he cannot do the work of hamali.
'l V' '*Even..thojugh~ repeatedrequests have been made to the owner of
the not compensated the claimant. Hence, he
filed the petition seeking compensation.
V i""~«_.Pursuant to the notice issued by the Commissioner for
l Vv?orkInen's Compensation, though the owner of the vehicle was
served, he has not entered appearance and placed exparte.
4. The Insurer entered appearance and filed the written
statement denying the entire averments made in the claim
/V
l"iSsues§*
petition and also contended that th_er,e_i_s nore'lationship,ofi.the.1
master and servant between clair'nant"ar1d'net;he. owne;r..__of:1Vethe
vehicle. Further no document has he'en'prod1j_.ce-d. toiishovtfthatp
the claimant is an employee of secondlrespondent and the
second respondent is is further
alleged that the claimant due to the
accident thatfoqéprredion Insurance Policy of
the Tractor' agricultural policy and he cannot
r\Plv'iC£Market. Hence sought for
dismissal 'pf the '
5. On__ the basis'- of--..__the pleadings of the parties, the
Commissioner, for Workmen's Compensation framed necessary
r' .
"e'f+:laimant in order to prove his case got exeunined
hirriselfv:as' and got marked the documents as EX.Pl to
He has also examined the Doctor who has treated him
it as. l§{W.2. On behalf of the Insurer, nobody was examined nor
any document wa/ q_
7. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after
considering the oral and documentary evidence
parties held that the claimant is a worknian
meaning of Section 2(l)(n) of the Wvorkinen's7_'CoVmper1sati_on "A_ctV.' j C'
The documents clearly disclose that
as a hamali in the Tractor and 'Trailerhelonging "t_o"'the"jsecor1d'
respondent. At the time oft./41$ ovvner of the
vehicle was paying hinialisalary -- p.m. Taking into
consideration the ageArr*Vof.. ithee 35 years, the
Commissioner of Rs.53,206/-- with
interest at: 30 days of passing the
award! aggrieved by the order dated
27»2--2CO?" Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensationhaspre-ferred this appeal.
8.' -- learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended oillthlat the order passed by the Commissioner for
Work~mer1's Compensation is contrary to law. The claimant was
travelling on the mudguard of the tractor in violation of the
conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurer is not
/0
liable to compensate the claimant. He also contendedltlhat the
insurance policy given to the Tractor and only
Farmer's package policy. The Tractor and T be lusaqb
only for the agricultural purposes jplrerriium"iS~.golle_ct'ed V
to cover the risk of the Vgcoolieslf.Ar'Further,.l:tl1erel*: 'r10'
relationship of master and servaiit betweeria.t_h;ellclaimant and
the second resp0ndent:owneI"""0.f_:"the__flvehicle; V-'V§Hence, the
claimant is not entitled."for..,lany from the
appellant and appeal by setting
aside the the Commissioner for
WOrkrnen'S'A_C0--.:fni)_ ., .
9. l7Qn = the lSn'.K.Dheeraj Kumar, learned
counsel la'ppearin'g_ respondent argued in support of
theéorder passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compebnsgation contending that the claimant was working as a
:in.,V__th.e";l'ractor and Trailer belonging to the second
res"pon.d'erit.:l'l On 24-10-2004, while transporting the maize from
the agricultural land of the second respondent to the APMC
0 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
u .."l"ractor and T railer, the accident has occurred and the claimant
/§~
fell down from the Tractor and Trailer and sustainedrdgytjevous
injuries to his left leg and injuries to the ankle jOllflHt_:' 'cannot
do the work of hamali. Further, along
another hamali by name Hanumanthegowlda 'al.so§fe1lf'
down from the Tractor and Trailer:and._sustaii1eci~ .inju:_'1es,l*He
has also preferred a claim petition beforetl1eA(3.orr1.rnis'sioner for
Workmen's Compensation and-the-Commihssioneryyhas awarded
compensation of A " 'favour of the
Hanumanthegowda S Fat'1'1..-- by the said order,
the /2007 and the
said court holding that the
Tractor forwthe agricultural purposes i.e.
transporting by the employer to the APMC
yard; .. xBased..,voi1v.ithel* judgment made in MFA No.6556/ 2006
' V" divsplosieid o'f..on 27l'--"1'2"-'V2010 (NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
SBLMARUTHI AND OTHERS), all the contentions
'thefappellant are negatived by this court. Hence, the
subject'; matter is fully covered by the judgment in MFA
A " A:Nlo'.~8y9l3 / 2007 and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
/5w
8
10. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused and
documentary evidence let in by the parties.
11. It is not in dispute that the-'claimant sustained'-injuries» i A'
in a road traffic accident that occu1:rsecl1.Qln'l24l§'1 Qt-2004"
was working as a hamali in the_VgiTractorV' and railergvblelonginglto
the second respondent, In gaccident, "hc..ha's sustained
grievous injuries to hislleflt 'leg joint. In his evidence,
the claimant got" marlgeflddthe statement of the
claimant as IMV report as
charge sheet as Ex.P7.
The riecordsi that the claimant has sustained
injuriesldin: the tdraiftidcddldaccident. Though the claimant
claims that he. getting a salary of Rs.100/« per day and
Rs.20/--, no document has been produced.
into consideration the income of the
claiman't'Rs.,3000/-- p.m., and also that he has undergone
grievous ;injuries to his left leg and ankle joint, on the basis of
d' tlieassessment of disability by the Doctor, further taking into
M .. consideration the loss of earning capacity at 15% and applying
/0"
11
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part. The order passt?.(1i?§]Vs.:th'eVp. . 3 Commissioner awarding compensation is confirmeiizt However, . the claimant is entitled to interest at themrate frc5.mx7_& the date of petition till the date of payrrienteaiid to interest at the rate of 12% pa. the date of '-passifig the award till deposit.