Karnataka High Court
M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Babushya @ Sheshappa Anandappa ... on 16 February, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUiT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 16T11 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE S.N.SAJYANARAYANA
MF.A.NO. 7529/2005 (WC)
BETWEEN:
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH MANAGER, BIJAPUR,
NOW REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE NO 25.
SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDINGS,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS.
DEPUTY MANAGER, NOW THROUGH.
ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, GULBARGA.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY. ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. BABUSHYA ALAIS
SHESHAPPA ANANDAPPA,
DIGAiMBARAMAT,
AGED 28 YEARS,
0CC: COOLIE.
C/O VITTAL BHOSLE. TEACHER.
NEAR WATER TANK, SINDAGI ROAD,
INDI. BIJAPUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI VIVEK S/O HARIHBAI
SHAH, MAJOR, REPRESENTED,
BY ASHOK PARASHE'lTY,
MANAGER, SARAWADA,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SHIVASHANKAR H. MANNUR ADV FOR
R- 1.
NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31-03-20
05 PASSED
IN NO.WCA.SR, 108/03 ON THE FILE OF
THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION. SUB DIVISION-i, BIJAPUR
, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF 58,126/- WITH INTE
REST AT 12%
P.A. FROM 24-03-2003 TILL 31-03-2005.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING
THIS I)AY. THE COURT DELIVERED TI-IE FOL
LOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Respondent-United India Insurance Com pany in WCA/SR- 108/2003 on the file of the Commiss ioner for Workmen's Compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 3 1.03.2005 passed therein.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
The claimant before the Commissioner who is first respondent herein is said to be a coolie, work ing under -3- the second respondent herein. His case is that on 18.06.200 1 he was proceeding from Tonashyl to Babaleshwar on tractor bearing No.MH-12/A1-I-4730.
When he was so proceeding on said vehicle, driver of said vehicle has driven the same In a rash and negligent manner, he fell down and suffered grievous injuries hence, ckjlm petition was filed by him.
3. In the said proceedings the Commissioner after recording evidence on behalf of claimant and respondents and also on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has proceeded to hold that claimant has suffered Injuries in the course of his employment while travelling in the aforesaid tractor belonging to second respondent herein and accordingly awarded compensation in a sum of !58, 126/- payable with interest from 30th day of order till date of deposit of entire amount.
4. Being aggrieved by the said award, present appeal Is filed contending that accident has taken place -4- when claimant was travelling on tractor whi ch is not meant to be used for the purpose of carrying collies and as such, there is violation of terms of policy.
Therefore appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to Indemnify the compensation fastened on owner of tractor, who is second respondent herein. It is also the case of appellant-Insurance Company that acciden t has taken place due to negligence on the part of claimant, inasmuch, tractor not being a goods vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act and is not des igned to carry any persons in the said vehicle other than the driver. It is also his case that tractor is mad e to carry agricultural Implements by towing the sam e through a hook or trailer to be fixed to the said vehicle.
5. The case of claimant is that at the relevant time of accident said tractor was attached with trailer and claimant was travelling In the said trai ler in the course of his employment under second respondent herein. In that view of matter appellant-Insurance -5- Company is liable to indemnif the compensation fastened on owner of the tractor.
6. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for first respondent that, tractor is a good s vehicle and in view of Section 147 of the Act, the liabi lity to pay compensation to persons carried in the good s vehicle is automatically covered under the policy is sued by Insurance Company without additional premium being paid. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of SrnLBhimavva and Others V/s. Shankar © Adya and Others reported in ILR 2003 KAR 3538.
7. Heard the counsel appearing for appellant and counsel for first respondent.
8. The second respondent is the owner of offending vehicle bearing No.MH-12/AH-4730 is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that said tractor is insured with appellant-Insurance Company herein.
It is V -6- also not In dispute that at the relevant time of accident which occurred on 18.06.2001, the said tractor was not attached with any trailer. On the other hand, the said tractor was pulling another machine which was used for drilling the ground through a hook attached to the said machine and tractor. The documentary evidence available on record vide Ex.P-3, submission of Mun 5/0. Govlndappa Pujari clearly disclose that on 18.06.200 1 the said flun, first respondent-claimant and other few persons were travelling on tractor with trailer and it Is stated that said tractor being driven In a rash and negligent manner by its driver, first respondent who was sitting on tractor fell down and came under the wheel of drilling machine, which was drawn by tractor, In the said process claimant was Injured. This dearly indicates that claimant was travelling on tractor and not on the machine, which was drawn by tractor or In trailer which normally would be attached to carry coolies though it is ifiegal.
'1 -7-
9. Therefore, it is clearly seen that claimant who got injuries in the accident was travelling in tractor which was meant to he used to carry agricultural implements and not as a goods vehicle, as it is seen from Section 2 (44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it is further seen that said tractor is empowered to carry only one person i.e.. driver and even in registration certificate of tractor it does not permit carrying any persons as passengers in the said vehicle besides driver.
10. In the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Oriential Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore V/s. Smt.Shoba and Others reported in 2011 (5) Kar. U. 30 (DB) and also the Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Rainlingegowda and Another reported in ILR 2011 Kar. 1840. this Court has taken a view that tractor is not used for carrying any person other than driver and any persons sitting in portion of the said tractor and suffering injury in the said vehicle, would not be entitled -8- to seek compensation. In that view of matter, this Court find that the impugned Judgment in this appeal is required to be set aside and appeal should be allowed. So far as, fastening liability on Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimant or lndemnll3r, the liabifity is on second respondent-owner of the tractor does not survive.
11. Accordingly, appeal filed by appeflant Insurance Company is allowed and liabifity fastened on Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimant in WCA/SR- 108/2003 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. BiJapur, is set aside.
In view of above, the amount In deposit is ordered to be released in favour of Appellant-Insurance Company.
Sd,..
JUDGE Srt