Karnataka High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Smt. Savithramma W/O Late Kunta on 11 April, 2018
Bench: Ravi Malimath, S G Pandit
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
MFA No.24944 of 2010 (MV) C/w. MFA No.24943 of 2010,
MFA Crob.No.892 of 2013 in MFA No.24943 of 2010,
MFA No.23095 of 2010 and MFA No.24187 of 2013
IN MFA NO.24944 OF 2010:
BETWEEN
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY BY ITS MANAGER
HEREIN REP. BY BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD., 4TH FLOOR, V.A.KALBURGI
MANSION, OPP: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE KUNTA
URKUNDAPPA, AGE 49 YEARS,
2. NARASIMHULU S/O LATE KUNTA URKUNDAPPA
AGE 31 YEARS,
:2:
3. NARASAPPA S/O LATE KUNTA URKUNDAPPA
AGE 29 YEARS,
4. GOPAL S/O LATE KUNTA URKUNDAPPA
AGE 27 YEARS,
(ALL ARE R/O IBRAHIMPURAM POST
YEMMIGANUR TALUK,
KURNOOL DISTRICT A.P.)
5. MABU VALI S/O HUSSAIN PEERA
AGE 43 YEARS, DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.AP-21/Y-2494
R/O NEAR FARID SAB MOHALLA ADONI
KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.
6. M.ABDUL LATEEF S/O M.NAZIR AHMED
AGE : 41 YEARS, OWNER OF MINI LORY
BEARING REG. NO.AP-21/Y-2494
R/O : DNO.811/, 12TH WARD, MAJIDPURA
VEEDHI, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4,
VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 NOTICE TO R5 IS
DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2015 NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
M.V.ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 13.07.2010, PASSED IN MVC NO.1198 OF 2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII,
AT BALLARI AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,87,000/- WITH INTERST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.
:3:
IN MFA NO.24943 OF 2010:
BETWEEN
M/S.BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY. BY ITS MANAGER,
HEREIN REP. BY BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD., 4TH FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI
MANSION, OPP. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.HANUMANTHAMMA
W/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. NARASIMHULU S/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. MINOR PALA REDDY S/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA
AGE 17 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER
SMT. HANUMANTHAMMA
W/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA,
(ALL ARE R/O: IBRAHIMPURAM POST,
TQ. YEMMIGANUR, DIST. KURNOOL, A.P.)
4. MABU VALI S/O HUSSIN PEERA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING REG. NO. AP-21/T-2494,
R/O NEAR FARID SAB MOHALLA,
ADONI, DIST. KURNOOL, A.P.
5. M.ABDUL LATEEF S/O M.NAZIR AHMED,
:4:
AGE: 41 YEARS, OWNER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING REG. NO. AP-21/T-2494,
R/O D. NO. 8/11, 12TH WARD, MAJIDPURA
VEEDHI, ADONI, A.P.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2015 NOTICE TO R4 IS
DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2015, NOTICE R5 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2010,
PASSED IN MVC NO.1197 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, AT BELLARY,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,97,400/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA.CROB NO.892 OF 2013:
BETWEEN
1. SMT. HANUMANTHAMMA
W/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O IBRAHIMPURAM POST, TQ. YEMMIGANUR
DIST. KURNOOL
2. NARASIMHULU
S/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O IBRAHIMPURAM POST, TQ. YEMMIGANUR
DIST. KURNOOL
3. PALA REDDY
S/O LATE ULLAGADDI RAMANNA
AGE: 20 YEARS, R/O IBRAHIMPURAM POST
:5:
TQ. YEMMIGANUR, DIST. KURNOOL
... CROSS-OBJECTORS
(BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MABU VALI S/O. HUSSAIN PEERA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING REG NO. AP 21/Y-2494
R/O. NEAR FARID SAB MOHALLA, ADONI
2. M.ABDUL LATEEF S/O. M.NAZIR AHMED
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING REG NO. AP-21/Y-2494
R/O. D NO. 8/11, 12TH WARD,
MAJIDPURA VEEDHI, ADONI, KURNOL DISTRICT
3. THE MANAGER
M/S. ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 11.04.2018 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROSS-OBJECTION IN MFA NO.24943 OF
2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC READ
WITH SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2010, PASSED IN MVC
NOS.1197 OF 2009 AND 1198 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, MACT-XII, BALLRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
:6:
IN MFA NO.23095 OF 2010:
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BELLARY, REP. HEREIN BY BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL,
INSURANCE CO. LTD., 4TH FLOOR,
V.A.KALBURGI MANSION, OPP. MUNCIPAL,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE B. VENKATESHULU,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. SRI.THOTA RAMUDU S/O LATE THIKKANNA,
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. SMT SUBHADRAMMA W/O THOTA RAMUDU,
AGE: ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
(ALL ARE RESIDING AT POST: IBRAHIMPURAM,
NANDAVARAM MANDALAM,
TALUK: YEMMIGANUR, DIST: KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH)
4. SRI.M.ABDUL LATEEF S/O M NAZIR AHMED,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MINI LORRY,
NO.AP-21/Y-2494, R/O H.NO.12/8, MAJIDPURA
VEEDHI, TALUK: ADONI, DISTRICT: KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
R3;
:7:
VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2009 PASSED IN WCA
NO.323 OF 2008, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER &
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-
DIVISION-I, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,76,740/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.24187 OF 2013:
BETWEEN
1. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE B.VENKATESHALU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
2. SRI. THOTA RAMUDU S/O LATE THIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DECEASED FATHER
3. SMT.SUBADRAMMA W/O THOTA RAMUDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DECEASED MOTHER
ALL ARE RESIDING AT IBRAHIMPURA POST,
NANDAVARAM MANDALAM, EMMIGANURU,
KURNOOL DISTIRICT
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI.M.ABUDL LATHIFF S/O M.NAJIR AHMED
MINI LORRY OWNER BEARING REG.
NO.AP-21/Y-2494, R/O.NO.12/8, MAZEEDPURA
VEEDHI, ADONI, KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH
:8:
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S.BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BELLARY
... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
SRI.R.R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C.
ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 PASSED
IN WCA NO.323 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS'
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION COMING
ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The case in brief is that on 8th May 2008 at about 1:00 a.m., deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna, deceased-Kunta Urukundappa and deceased-B.Venkateshulu were travelling from their village, in a mini lorry bearing registration No.AP- 21/Y-2494. They were proceeding to sell chilies in Byadagi Market. The deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna was the owner of the chilly being transported. The second deceased-Kunta Urukundappa was a hamali in the said lorry. The third :9: deceased-B.Venkateshulu was the cleaner of the said lorry. When they were travelling in the lorry along with Basha, Jayanna, Dastagiri and Tayanna, at about 1:00 a.m. near Sai Daba on Bangaluru - Ballari road, near Halagundi, Ballari Taluk, the driver of the mini lorry drove the same in a high speed and rash manner, as a result of which the lorry turned turtle. Ullagaddi Ramanna, Kunta Urukundappa and B.Venkateshulu died on the spot. The wife and children of deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna filed MVC No.1197 of 2009. The wife and children of the deceased- Kunta Urukundappa filed MVC No.1198 of 2009 and the wife and parents of the deceased - B.Venkateshulu filed W.C.No.323 of 2008 seeking compensation.
2. The claimants in MVC No.1198 of 2009 had earlier filed MVC No.841 of 2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The claimants in MVC No.1197 of 2009 had earlier filed W.C.No.320 of 2008, which was subsequently withdrawn and thereafter MVC No.1197 of 2009 was filed. MVC Nos.1197 and 1198 of 2009 were taken up for : 10 : consideration together. The other proceedings were filed in W.C.No.323 of 2008 by the legal representatives of B.Venkateshulu. The Tribunal by its order dated 13th July, 2010 granted compensation of Rs.3,97,400/- to the claimants in MVC No.1197 of 2009 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,87,000/- to the claimants in MVC No.1198 of 2009. Questioning its liability to satisfy the award, the Insurer has filed MFA No.24944 of 2010 aggrieved by the order passed in MVC No.1198 of 2009 and MFA No.24943 of 2010 is filed being aggrieved by the order passed in MVC No.1197 of 2009. MFA Crob.No.892 of 2013 is filed by the claimants in MFA No.24943 of 2010. Hence, M.F.A.Nos.24944 of 2010 and 24943 of 2010 and the M.F.A.Crob.No.892 of 2013 are considered together.
3. The Tribunal while considering the contentions putforth, came to the conclusion that the deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna was travelling in the lorry along with his goods. The evidence as let in by the claimants are to the said effect, that he was travelling along with his goods as the owner of : 11 : the goods. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the policy would cover the risk of such a person. The same is sought to be challenged herein on the ground that the vehicle involved is a goods vehicle and the seating capacity of the said vehicle is '1+2' persons. Admittedly, the deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna was travelling in the vehicle along with his goods and there were seven other persons, who were travelling in the mini lorry. The liability of the insurer in terms of the policy would cover only '1+2' persons. Therefore, the claim of the deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna would not be covered by the policy. It is contended that none of the claim petitions require to be accepted, since the claims are not bonafide at all and that all of them were travelling as passengers in the goods vehicle and subsequently they have changed their stands as if they are owner of the goods, hamali and cleaner of the lorry. Therefore, the policy does not cover these persons.
4. In the alternate, it is contended that even though the policy covers the liability of a driver and two other : 12 : persons, the claim of two other persons could therefore be allowed and not of anybody else.
5. On the other hand, the same is disputed by the counsel for the claimants. He contends that in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the person travelling in a goods vehicle along with his goods stands covered by the policy. In support of his case, he relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Thukarama Adappa reported in LAWS(KAR) 2006 11 46.
6. On the contrary, counsel for the Insurer relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 484 to contend that the persons travelling in a goods vehicle are not covered by the policy.
7. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.
: 13 :
8. The facts would indicate that the vehicle was carrying chilly bags when it met with the accident wherein the chilly bags fell on all the inmates of the vehicle; as a result Ullagaddi Ramanna, Kunta Urukundappa and B.Venkateshulu died on the spot and other five persons, who were travelling in the vehicle sustained injuries; that initially when the FIR came to be lodged by one Basha, he narrated that he along with the other members from his village were travelling in the said vehicle along with their respective chilly bags. This is the first statement made in the FIR, which was lodged before the Police. Subsequently, the claimants have come out with the case that the deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna is the owner of the chilly bags, the deceased-Kunta Urukundappa is the hamali and B.Venkateshalu is the cleaner of the said vehicle.
9. The first argument of the insurer is that what has been stated in the FIR should be given due importance. In the FIR, Basha has stated that all the persons were travelling in the vehicle along with their respective chilly bags. If the : 14 : same is to be considered as contended by the insurer, the only conclusion that can be reached is that everybody in the said vehicle were travelling with their respective chilly bags. Therefore, all of them are to be considered as owners travelling in the vehicle along with their goods. Therefore, the contention would rather run opposite to the case of the insurer than against that of the claimants.
10. The judgment relied upon by the insurer in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 484, in our considered view would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances involved herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by considering the earlier judgments held that in the facts and circumstances of the case involved therein, the deceased had boarded the lorry and had paid an amount of Rs.20/- as transport charges and the fact that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner or as owner of the goods had not been proved. Therefore, only because there were goods in the vehicle and there were : 15 : other people in the vehicle does not mean that they can be protected under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a distinction between the owners travelling in the vehicle along with their own goods and the persons travelling by themselves along with goods belonging to someone else. The facts herein are quite opposite. There is substantial material and even in terms of the contention of the insurer it is clear that right from the stage of the FIR being lodged, the deceased and the injured claimants were travelling in the vehicle with their respective bags of chilly. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment would be of no avail.
11. On the other hand, counsel for the claimants placing reliance on paragraph 21 of the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Thukarama Adappa reported in LAWS(KAR) 2006 11 46 and contends that the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained to the owner of the goods, which was carried in the vehicle.
: 16 :
12. The amendment brought about to the Section 147 of the Act, post 1994 is to add another class of person being covered, as the person travelling along with the goods. Herein there are two aspects of the matter; prior to the amendment any person travelling in the goods vehicle as a passenger was not covered by the Policy and therefore the Insurer was not liable to satisfy the claim. The liability was extended in terms of the amendment to include that the person travelling along with his goods would also be covered under the said liability. This is the distinction that was sought to be made in terms of the aforesaid amendment. Therefore, in terms of Section 147 of the Act, the owner of the goods, who is travelling in the vehicle, would also be covered by the said policy. Therefore, we are of the view that since there is substantial material to indicate that the deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna being the owner of the goods was travelling in the vehicle, the insurer is liable to satisfy his claim.
13. In fact, it is even submitted at the Bar that in the criminal proceedings pertaining to the accident, the chilly : 17 : bags that were seized by the Police was since released to the custody of the claimants namely the legal representatives of the deceased-Ullagaddi Ramanna. This factor also establishes the fact that the owner was travelling in the vehicle along with his goods. Therefore, we are of the view that MFA No.24943 of 2010 is bereft of merit and is liable to be rejected.
14. M.F.A.Cross objection No.892 of 2013 has been filed by the dependants of deceased Ullagaddi Ramanna seeking enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimants is that the deceased Ullagaddi Ramanna was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist owning 3 acres of agricultural land. Their claim was that he was earning a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per annum. However, we find that to be too excessive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2011 (13) SCC 236 has held that even a coolie in the State of Karnataka in the year 2008 would be entitled to a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per : 18 : month. Herein is a case wherein the deceased was an agriculturist owning agricultural lands also. Therefore, based on the said judgment, we deem it proper to hold the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. The multiplier and the deduction adopted by the Tribunal are appropriate and undisturbed. Hence, the loss of dependency is worked out as follows:
Rs.6000x12X13X2/3rd= Rs.6,24,000/-
15. Towards conventional heads i.e., transportation of dead body, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards litigation expenses. Hence, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,14,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. M.F.A.Cross Objection No.892 of 2013 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The judgment and award dated 13.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari, in M.V.C.No.1197 of 2009 is : 19 : modified to the extent indicated above. Consequently, M.F.A.No.24943 of 2010 filed by the insurer is dismissed.
16. M.F.A.No.24944 of 2010 is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.1198 of 2009. The deceased was one Kunta Urkundappa. Herein the case of the claimants is that late Kunta Urukundappa was the hamali of the said lorry. It is their specific case that he being the hamali was travelling in the vehicle. The said fact is disputed by the insurer. Except the oral testimony of the claimants vis-à-vis the insurer, there is no material to show that he was not a hamali.
Merely to contend to the negative would not be sufficient to establish the fact that he was a gratuitous passenger and not a hamali. In fact, the specific case of the claimants is that he is a hamali. We find no reason to disbelieve the same.
17. The further contention of the appellant-insurer is that the seating capacity of the vehicle is only '1+2' persons, therefore any liability beyond that cannot be saddled on the insurer. Admittedly there were seven persons travelling in : 20 : the vehicle. Therefore, even for the sake of arguments, if excluding the driver, two other persons are covered under the Policy the claimant would be covered.
18. In fact while considering the records, we have also examined the evidence of the insurer in terms of RW-1. There is not even a statement in the evidence to the effect that the deceased Kunta Urukundappa was not a hamali. In view of the specific evidence of the insurer himself, the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding to the contrary. Since the deceased was a hamali, he stands covered by the policy. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal being just and proper, we find no good ground to upset the said findings. Consequently, M.F.A.No.24944 of 2010 is dismissed.
19. M.F.A.No.23095 is filed by the insurer to set aside the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division No.1, Ballari, in WCA No.323 of 2008. The claimants herein are the legal representatives of the deceased B.Venkateshulu who was also travelling in the : 21 : above mentioned lorry. The claimants herein filed a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking grant of compensation on the ground that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent No.1 before the Tribunal namely the owner of the vehicle. The appeal is filed by the insurer wherein the liability is being questioned on the ground that the deceased was not a cleaner and he is not related to the owner of the vehicle. However, the specific case of the claimants is that he was employed by the 1st respondent and was earning a salary of Rs.5,000/- p.m. and Rs.100/- per day as batta. We have examined the records and are of the considered view that the relationship between respondent No.1 and the deceased has been established that the deceased was working under respondent No.1 as a cleaner of the said vehicle. The policy admittedly covers the risk of the driver and two other persons. The deceased herein was an employee of the owner. Therefore, he stands covered by the policy. : 22 : Therefore, we are of the view that the insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to satisfy the award. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed.
20. M.F.A.No.24187 is filed by the legal representatives of deceased B.Venkateshulu seeking enhancement of compensation. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation held the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- p.m. which is inappropriate. It is on the lower side. Hence, the same is held at Rs.4,000/- p.m. The specific case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. However, the ration card produced by the claimants in terms of Ex.P.7 would indicate that the deceased was aged 29 years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the age taken by the Commissioner is inappropriate and we hold age of the deceased at 29 years and the appropriate factor that would be applicable for the said age is 209.92. Hence, the compensation is worked out as follows:
Rs.4000X209.92X50%=Rs.4,19,840/-: 23 :
21. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 30 days after the date of the accident till the deposit is made by the insurer. Accordingly, M.F.A.No.24187 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The order dated 30.12.2009 passed in W.C.No.323 of 2008 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Ballari, is modified to the extent indicated above.
22. The amount in deposit in M.F.A.Nos.24943 of 2010 and 24944 of 2010 is directed to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for necessary orders. The amount in deposit in M.F.A.No.23095 of 2010 is transmitted to the concerned Civil Court for necessary orders.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE