Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Smt Sumithra on 21 October, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081
MFA No. 2183 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019
MFA No. 1193 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2183 OF 2013(WC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8784 OF 2019(ECA)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2020(ECA)
IN MFA NO.2183/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CRESCENT COURT
K. M. ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KUMAR R 1. SMT. SUMITHRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF W/O. LATE RAMASETTY
KARNATAKA MAJOR
2. KUMARI SUSHMA
D/O. LATE RAMASHETTY
3. MASTER DEVARAJ
S/O. LATE RAMASHETTY
4. KUMARI SUPREETHA
D/O. LATE RAMASHETTY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081
MFA No. 2183 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019
MFA No. 1193 of 2020
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED
BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER
THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN
ALL PRESENTLY R/AT UJANI, HOSPET
BIDARE VILLAGE
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. SMT. BELLAMMA
W/O. HEGGADEGOWDA
MAJOR
R/O. ARIGA VILLAGE, M. PETE POST
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. K. BHAT, FOR;
SRI K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-4;
R:2 - R:4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R-1;
SRI A. S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED IN
WCA(F)-01/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB
DIVISION-01, CHICKMAGALUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF Rs.3,79,120/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% FROM 12.12.2009
TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO. 8784/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
1ST FLOOR, CRESCENT COURT
K. M. ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081
MFA No. 2183 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019
MFA No. 1193 of 2020
AND:
1. SMT. U. C. SUDHA
W/O. LATE CHANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. U. C. SANDEEP
S/O. LATE CHANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. U. C. SANGEETHA
D/O. LATE CHANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O UJANI, HOSPETE
KHANDYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
4. PROPRIETOR
KOLARKHAN COFFEE ESTATE
KHANDYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
5. SMT. BELLAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
5(a) ARVIND S/O LATE HEGDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5(b) ARPANNA
D/O. LATE HEGDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
5(a) AND 5(b) R/O ARIGE, DEVADANA VILLAGE
KHANDYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
6. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
YASHORAM CHAMBERS
R. G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081
MFA No. 2183 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019
MFA No. 1193 of 2020
(BY SRI A. K. BHAT FOR;
K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI K. N. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/09/2019, PASSED IN
ECA NO.344/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND COMMISSIONER
FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,88,240/- AT THE
RATE OF 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER
TILL ENTIRE REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 1193/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. U. C. SUDHA
W/O. LATE CHANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. U. C. SANDEEP
S/O. LATE CHANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
3. KUM U. C. SANGEETHA
D/O. LATE CHANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O. UJANI
HOSPETE, KHANDYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081
MFA No. 2183 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019
MFA No. 1193 of 2020
2. SMT. BELLAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2(a) ARVIND
S/O. LATE HEGDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2(b) ARPANNA
D/O LATE HEGDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SL. NO. 2(a) AND 2(b) ARE
R/O ARIGE, DEVADANA VILLAGE
KHANDYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. C. SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI A. S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (A AND B)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 16.09.2019, PASSED IN
ECA NO.344/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND COMMISSIONER
FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081
MFA No. 2183 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019
MFA No. 1193 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The insurer, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ("the Commissioner"), is in appeal.
2. On 12.11.2009, an accident occurred involving a tractor-trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-18/8238-8239. In said accident, the tractor collided with one Channashetty and he suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. In the accident, the driver of the tractor--Ramashetty also suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. As a consequence, claim petitions were filed by the wife and children of the driver Ramashetty and the wife and children of Channashetty--the other deceased.
4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, in the claim relating to the driver Ramashetty, has come to the conclusion that an accident occurred -7- NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020 during the course of Ramashetty's employment and he was entitled to a sum of Rs.3,79,120/-. It has also held that since the tractor, which Ramashetty was driving was insured by the insurer, it had to indemnify the compensation award amount.
5. Insofar as the claim relating to Channashetty, the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation has come to the conclusion that Channashetty was working under the Bellamma as a coolie and he also suffered an accident during the course of his employment and he was, therefore, entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,88,240/-.
6. The insurer of the tractor is in appeal in M.F.A. No.2183/2013 and M.F.A. No.8748/2019. The widow and children of Channashetty are also in appeal in M.F.A. No.1193/2020.
7. Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the insurer contends that the driver admits that -8- NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020 both the tractor and trailer were insured. He, however, submits that the driver of the tractor i.e., Ramashetty only possessed a licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle' and the insurer would not therefore, be liable to pay the compensation amount.
8. He places reliance on Section 10(2)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the MV Act") to contend that to drive a tractor with the trailers attached, a specific endorsement would be required, since it would become a motor vehicle of a specified description. He submits that, no doubt, a tractor has been defined as a 'light motor vehicle' but since there is no endorsement which enabled the driver to drive a tractor with the trailers attached, the insurer could not be made liable for payment of the compensation.
9. In the light of the above, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of these appeals -
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020
1. Whether the driver of a tractor which is a 'light motor vehicle' as defined under Section 2(21) is required to obtain a licence under Section 10(j) to drive a tractor with a trailer attached to it or whether the driver of a tractor would be duly licenced to drive a tractor with a trailer attached to it if he possesses a licence to drive light motor vehicle; and
2. Whether the Commissioner was justified in accepting the income of the injured at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and whether the Commissioner was right in awarding interest at the rate of 8% only.
10. A 'motor vehicle' or a 'vehicle' is defined under Section 2(28) as any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads, whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a cassis to which a body has not been attached and also a trailer. Thus, a tractor and a trailer are motor vehicles.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020
11. A 'light motor vehicle' is defined under Section 2(21) as a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of which or a motor car or a tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. Thus, a tractor is a light motor vehicle when its unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs
12. A 'transport vehicle', which term is found in the definition of a LMV under Section 2(21) has been defined under Section 2(47) as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.
13. A 'goods carriage' is defined under Section 2(14) as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to for use solely for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for carriage of goods.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020
14. A 'tractor' is defined under Section 2(44) as a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. A conjoint reading of the above definitions would thus indicate that even though a tractor has not been constructed or adapted to carry any load, but the moment it is used for carriage of goods, it becomes a 'goods carriage'.
15. A 'trailer' has been defined under Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.
16. Thus, if the definition of 'tractor' is read in conjunction with the definition of a 'trailer', it is clear that it becomes a goods carriage. However, that would not mean that a trailer on being attached to a light motor vehicle such as a tractor, does not change the fundamental character of a tractor as a 'light motor vehicle'.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020
17. Section 10(2) of the MV Act states that a 'driving licence' shall be expressed as entitling the holder to driver the motor vehicle of 7 classes of vehicles mentioned therein. The 4th class of vehicle mentioned therein is a 'light motor vehicle'.
18. Thus, if a person possesses a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, by virtue of the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' which would also include a tractor, he would be entitled to drive the tractor.
19. The argument of the insurer that the moment a trailer is attached to a light motor vehicle, it becomes 'a motor vehicle of a specified description' under Section 10(2)(j) cannot be accepted fundamentally because a 'tractor' does not cease to be a light motor vehicle by the mere attachment of a trailer to it. In fact, one of the basic attributes of a tractor is that it is designed to draw a trailer attached to it.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020
20. The learned counsel for the claimants relies upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal1 wherein it is held that the holder of a licence of 'light motor vehicle' can drive a tractor attached to a trolley carrying goods and no separate endorsement is necessary. In the light of this decision also, the argument would be untenable.
21. A reference to the Rules framed in relation to Trailers would also be necessary.
22. Rule 206 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ("the Rules") bars any vehicle to be drawn or towed by any motor vehicle. However, the exceptions provided under Rule 206 of the Rules for towing, are a mechanically disabled or incompletely assembled motor vehicle, registered trailer or a side-car.
23. Having regard to the definition of the 'trailer' which has been defined only as a vehicle, the attachment of such a vehicle to a tractor, which is undoubtedly, a 1 Sant Lal v. Rajesh and Others etc., AIR 2017 SC 4054.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020 'light motor vehicle', which can be towed in accordance with Rule 206 of the Rules would clearly indicate that it continues to be a light motor vehicle and it can never be considered as a separate class of vehicle i.e., a motor vehicle of a specified description.
24. If it is permissible for a tractor to tow a trailer, the tractor trailer combination cannot transform the class of the vehicle from a 'light motor vehicle' to a 'motor vehicle of a specified description'. For a motor vehicle to be a vehicle of a specified description, it should be a vehicle other than those statutorily defined and classified under the definitions.
25. As already noticed above, a trailer is a vehicle, which can be towed by a motor vehicle and a tractor is undoubtedly a motor vehicle and is a light motor vehicle by virtue of its weight. Thus, the law clearly contemplates that a tractor continues to be a 'light motor vehicle' even if a trailer is attached to it.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020
26. In light of the above, the argument of the insurer that a moment a trailer is attached to a tractor, it becomes a motor vehicle of a specified description cannot be accepted.
27. The Apex Court, as noticed above, in the case of Sant Lal (supra) has clearly held that the holder of a licence of a light motor vehicle can drive a tractor attached to a trolley carrying goods and no separate endorsement is required authorizing it to drive such a transport vehicle.
28. This judgment also supports the above reasoning that a tractor with a trailer attached to it does not transform the class of vehicles i.e., from a 'light motor vehicle' to a 'motor vehicle' of a specified description.
29. The first question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. The
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020 appeal of the insurer on this aspect is, therefore, without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
30. As regards the second question of law, the Commissioner -- in the claim relating to the death of Channashetty -- has taken the salary of Channashetty as Rs.8,000/-.
31. In the claim relating to the death of Ramashetty, however, the Commissioner has taken the income as Rs.4,000/-, notwithstanding the claim that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.
32. As the accident, though of the year 2009, occurred before the the Workmen's Compensation's Act, 1923 ("the WC Act") was amended on 22.12.2009, as per Section 4, the maximum salary that could be taken was Rs.4,000/-. In light of this statutory limitation regarding the salary to be taken into consideration, the adoption of income of Rs.6,000/- in the claim relating to Channashetty cannot be accepted.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020 Consequently, the award is modified and it is held that as against Rs.6,000/-, the monthly income should be taken as Rs.4,000/- and accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,94,120/- [(50% of Rs.4,000/-) i.e., Rs.2,000/- x 197.06].
33. As regards the rate of interest, the Commissioner in the claim relating to Channashetty has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Section 4A of the WC Act statutorily mandates that the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the interest payable would be from the date of the accident. Accordingly, the second question of law is answered partly in favour of the insurer and partly in favour of the claimants i.e., legal representatives of Channashetty and it is held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,94,120/- along with interest
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42081 MFA No. 2183 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8784 of 2019 MFA No. 1193 of 2020 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of the payment.
34. M.F.A. No.2183/2013 filed by the insurer is dismissed. M.F.A. No.8784/2019 filed by the insurer is allowed in part. M.F.A. No.1193/2020 filed by claimants is allowed in part.
35. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
36. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with interest.
37. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Commissioner forthwith.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28