Karnataka High Court
Shri. Vittalasa vs Smt Paravatevva W/O Mallappa Barigidad on 20 April, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A. NO.103347 OF 2017 (WC)
C/w. M.F.A. NO.103348 OF 2017 (WC)
In MFA No.103347/2017:
BETWEEN:
SHRI VITTALSA S/O.JAGANATHSA JITURI,
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER
OF TIPPER VEHICLE,
R/O. HOUSE NO.414, NEAR MAHANTESH MATH, GUDUR
VILLAGE, TQ:HUNAGJUND,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587202,
(OWNER OF THE TIPPER BEARING
REG. NO. KA-29/A-8574)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAXMI @ LAXMAVVA
W/O. HANAMANTH BARIGIDAD,
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally 2. BHIMAVVA D/O. HANAMANTH BARIGIDAD,
signed by J
MAMATHA AGE 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
J Location:
MAMATHA Dharwad
Date:
2022.04.21
3. NEELAPPA S/O. HANAMANT BARIGIDAD,
11:34:45 AGE 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
+0530
(RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
I.E., MOTHER-RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN)
-2-
MFA No.103347/2017
C/w. MFA No.103348/2017
4. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA BARIGIDAD,
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 4 HEREIN
ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKANAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587202.
5. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CTS NO.477/1, M-1, 1ST FLOOR,
V.A. KALBURGI, HALLMARK BUILDING,
DESAI CROSS ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020,
(BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
This MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 10.07.2017, PASSED IN ECA.NO.8/2015, ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION HUNGUND, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,40,370/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
In MFA No.103348/2017:
BETWEEN:
SHRI VITTALSA S/O.JAGANATHSA JITURI,
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS & OWNER
OF TIPPER VEHICLE,
R/O. HOUSE NO.414, NEAR MAHANTESH MATH, GUDUR
VILLAGE, TQ:HUNAGJUND,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587202,
(OWNER OF THE TIPPER BEARING
REG. NO. KA-29/A-8574)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARVATEVVA
W/O. MALLAPPA BARIGIDAD,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-3-
MFA No.103347/2017
C/w. MFA No.103348/2017
2. MARUTI S/O. MALLAPPA BARIGIDAD,
AGE 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. SACHIN S/O. MALLAPPA BARIGIDAD,
AGE 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. KUM. NEELAVVA D/O MALLAPPA BARIGIDAD,
AGE 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
(RESPONDENT NOS.3 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
I.E., MOTHER-RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN)
5. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. MAILARAPPA BARIGIDAD,
AGE 77 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 5HEREIN
ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKANAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587202.
5. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CTS NO.477/1, M-1, 1ST FLOOR,
V.A. KALBURGI, HALLMARK BUILDING,
DESAI CROSS ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020,
(BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R5
SRI. N.C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R6
R2 & R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 10.07.2017, PASSED IN ECA.NO.9/2015, ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION HUNGUND, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,13,320/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
MFA No.103347/2017
C/w. MFA No.103348/2017
JUDGMENT
1. A petition was filed under the Employees' Compensation Act contending that Hanamant and Mallappa were travelling in a lorry loaded with the bricks and due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the driver of the lorry lost control and as a result of which the lorry turned turtle. As a result of this, both Hanamant and Mallappa sustained injuries and were killed at the spot.
2. The Commissioner held that the L.Rs. of the deceased were entitled for compensation but it exonerated the liability of the insurer on the ground that the deceased were travelling on the bricks loaded in the lorry and were not travelling in the cabin and therefore there was a violation of the Rule 100 of the M.V. Rules and thus the Insurance Company would not be liable.
3. The Commissioner thereafter assessed the compensation of Rs.6,40,370/- in ECA No.8/2015 and Rs.5,13,320/- in ECA No.9/2015 respectively and made the owner of the lorry liable for the said sums. -5- MFA No.103347/2017 C/w. MFA No.103348/2017
4. The questions that would arise for consideration in these appeals are as under:
(i) Whether the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated its liability merely on the ground that the deceased who were coolies were travelling on the bricks loaded in the lorry outside the cabin?
(ii) Whether the finding of the Commissioner that travelling of coolies outside the cabin is in contravention of Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules is correct?
5. This Court in the case of Narasamma and others Vs. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in 2021 ACJ 734, at paragraph 23 has held as under:
"23. Since the rule itself permits carriage of persons in the vehicle, it is not material whether the person travels within the cabin or outside the cabin. So long as number of people travelling in the goods vehicle as specified under Rule 100 of the Rules, the goods vehicle is permitted to carry passengers."
6. In the light of this decision, the finding of the Commissioner that there was a contravention of Rule 100 by -6- MFA No.103347/2017 C/w. MFA No.103348/2017 the coolies travelling outside the cabin to exonerate the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner insofar as it relates to the exoneration of the liability of Insurance Company is set aside and it is hereby held that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner to the claimants in both these cases. The Insurance Company shall comply with the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
7. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified.
8. The amount deposited by the appellant-owner, if any, shall be refunded to them forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*