Branch Manager National Insurance Co ... vs Ramalingegowda on 3 February, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

Branch Manager National Insurance Co ... vs Ramalingegowda on 3 February, 2011

Equivalent citations: 2011 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 485 (KAR.), 2011 AAC 2183 (KAR), 2011 (3) AIR KANT HCR 76, (2011) 4 TAC 642, (2012) 4 ACC 629, (2011) 2 KCCR 1512, (2012) 3 ACJ 1595, (2011) 130 FACLR 358, (2011) 4 KANT LJ 644, (2011) 4 CIVLJ 415

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

IN THE mere: scum' or KARNATALKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TEIE 3% DAY OF FEBRUARY 2_Q.3.V.':t4 ..._

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.£LS4§TYANAii;_xY2$I§A Q ' x 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A1'PE2'LI:;41*?(7):A.[I§:i24«{£_)yF' 

BETWEEN:

Branch Manager;
National Insurance (20., Ltciu

V.V'R.oa.d, Mandya, V 

Now represented by its _

Regienal Manager,   .

National Ii1sura1';.;r:<--v ,_(3'e., Ltd,  _ ._ :
RegionalC)ffice4,.f3ubiiara,Ii1    " 
Complex, 1445 1\iI_..(;"*1~. 'R'{'>2?.¢;1;"'--{'j'--_ I  '
}3£'r§(3Ja];()Ii;§_::;;:.f*i g' m  t .H

(Byiiri

., APPELLANT.

  ,V 
ANB: é M     '
1. Ramali12.gegQi3;*d;}{,A.' M _#
S ,/ 0. Thimn:;egoWda., "
NQVV aged abaut 30 Years,

.  . 'R,/p5»'AC'héwdaghV:iifa Village,

' , 'See1aI1e1's§'HQb1i, KR. Pet Tq.,
 m..%~2m2IsT-

:   2, "  

S/oﬁdiléeboregowda,

 Age  V Maj or, Agriculturistg

 A' "Rf/0 Murakanahalli
 * .._'v_5£11age & Past Seelanere

 Hobli, KR. Pet Tqw

V MANDYA DIST.

{By Sri,V.N.M3.dhava
R€{idj.?., Adv. fer R~1

Sri,K.V.Narasimh3.n,
Adv, far R22}

.., RES?ONBENTS.

$M$»$_$M$Na_$



This Appeal} is filed under' Seetioii 30(1) of the
Workmenfs Compensation Act, against the Judgme.3;i't--,?and
Grciei' c'i21t.e<§. 29.892685 peasseii iii 'z?'J{',.s'%.,' NF»~'§'55,! 2O--{)7'E--. _.§;:-?s"':,1$1e

file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner 
CO1'I1p€I1Sati01'l, SubwI)iVision«2, Mandygy"-._VV f2_1wiard'in'igV'
compensation of Rs.1,69,189/» with .inte.rest.'_at  I:2'??fo aifteij oneu' a

month from the da.te of accident tiliV=.i:he_-Adafte'of .giTc:ei(}er;_t, avnid

directing the appeliant herein tooeposii'; the sar1f;_--(§;i" ». 2

This Appeal Coming on fOF"I~71;ifth€I'  day;

the Court delivered the fo1,1owi:ng:--------- _  '
J U 9 G.  
Seeozid resg;po':f{;{.?ier:et 33:1 2001 on the file of
Comm.issionef  'Corhpehsation, Mandya, has
come upﬁin  the order so far as it

pertains to  on the Insurance Company to

pay the.;jeo1:1pens'atio'Ii. V"

 L'  iieading to this appeai are as under:

i?..irst_.1'es;;ioiide:'1t ~ claimant is said to be a daily wager

"ii-Ti,"V"«1mzier seeo-hci respondent herein, doing agricultural eooiie

"--\ifoifis:,,_ ease of the eiaimant. is that while he was working 35" __:§1griet11t'ura1 Coolie under the second respondent on :E9.0L2001 at about 8.00 E3_wl'11.., he was carrying out the Work of feeding; paddy hay to the trasheif for separatitm of paddy from hay. in the said ;::roeess§ he was tising, his iefi: iegg; to ia,a;,¢ 2% feed the hay, which got: caught in the eruehez" reeuit:ir1g in crush irijuries to his left leg. He1'1ee he fiied Claim Petition before the Commissioraer for Workmerfs Compertéation, Mandya, seeking eompe:"1sai:ion from his as the insu_re'r of the '{'raet0r betcmging to Said erhp'3oyfer;i' h

3. In the p'roeee(f.i21gS before Ithe, ii{:to4in1hi'ssio:mf::}:°V A for W()rkmen's Compeneation, on at" _ hearing" the parties, the Commisei'oher_proeeVe'§1eh{i the Ciaim Petition awarding .e1aie1HahtVV in a sum of Rs.1,69,189/M payable from the thirtieth date of ;aee_it1ent._ ideposit of entire amount. order, iiability to pay the eompensatiorijsi faé3tef1ec1- on the owner and as well as on '.In.suran.e¢eivcompatxyei V'Apf3e11ani: being aggrieved by the Order in to the liabiiity to pay the compensation, has" .eo1_:3e""iig)_ i.iV'1".tt1is appeat on the ground that firet i"eSponEientv--._"before the Commissioner has taken the motor po1'ie3I coverage for the Mitsubishi tractor bearing i\:§'{:?t'.'f"}3V'IV)LE:"':L['\L'Vf 9433099 and ehasa bear}:-1g No.945115. The _er)ve'rage was also issued to the trailer. it is the Sp€Ci'fiC ease of the appeltant that the Crusher', whieh wee zzsect for rem<;rv'i_:1g paddy froiiﬁ hay was not irxsured 'we is.

terw H

6. Heard the eotmsel for the appeilemi. and respondents, 'E. On reappreeiatiori of pieadings and orai documents available on record with reference to grounds of appeal and also the findings of the Commissioner for Wor_lQfne_n's Compensation in the order irnptigned, this court---:1ns'w'ei=sl the aforesaid substantial question of law .i.n__tl1e _-heg'ati_ve';"rtfor the"

following:

REA§9Ns_

8. Adniittediy, the ciaisfnaat hereiri "has so'ﬁ5ere.d§ accident while he was discharging dut'y.as3 agriVc*:tltL.tral coolie under the first rétspondleliit-1;j:e'fore_:th_e Commissioner for Workmerfs Compensat.ion."Et is alslov.a11».._adrnitted fact that the accident is caused to_him""while_'he7was working on the trasher, which.

was used 'separat€_I_1__??=}"' and paddy. it is also an admitted fact. that; 'thevsaivd-..trasl1er is an independent machine which is riot'--an;-a,ttaei1rrier:tVto the tractor and it is also not in dispute ' V'-.,.Vt.hat tiéel"said.t.ra_si;1er was run from the power that was drawn from the tractor. Merely, because, the power is drawn from "l'tll'"ie_l' tra_jctoi"" that does not mean that the trasher is an attfzigihitietiti to the t.raetor; The fact that the aeeiderit taken i:._'}»»»"§ £3.

place due to operation of trasher would not amount to accident caused in usage of tractor.

9. The analogy taken by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is without any basis. Adn1itted1y;.._4l'lxthe insurance company has issued rnoitor Vehicle polizrsy to [mSi:.re~--. the tractor along with trailer attaeh_ecl. to tl;iat"'ari§i Vlthveiesaiud policy does not cover the liability of the tractor under Workmerrs VCoin.pensatior1_ Pie't'.~.__"l'he1'efore;.' the iiabiiﬁy of the ii'1s'ure1i..a:"ises.er1ljy-_ir1--~..:respei;t..oi" the injury, which is caused to the"'elairii_aht illllin Course of his emplc)ymeh_t »o;):e11a_tior1 of the tractor and trailer. The trasherlwhiehl is 'separation of the paddy in the field, being an indepenclent machine cannot he considered as an tractor and the injury suffered by the olaimut' i}vhi'_ie 'ivorkirig in the said trasher Cannot be esgrisideéreidas injury clue to the use of the t.ra.etor.

"":Q;~ A"i'here is an error on the part of the Commissioner for ll"--____Worl§men's Compensation in Considering that the appellant ii2.s:,:rer herein is liabie to pay the compensation for the injury suffered by the olairnant, due to use of tirasherl The order 2 ""5 paesed by the Commiseicmer is required to be modified in so far as it pertains to fastening; of liability on the second respondent insurer, the appellant herein.

11. Accordingly.' the appe-at filed by the insurer isj-"allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner in is modified so far as it pertains to fastening of 1.iahi.1:ityj:tVo Compensation by second respondent. M dirissuranee,_ee1fI1par1yV§? In the result the claimant is entitled to4i"eeeiVe the-1; ﬁorripeiﬁation awarded by the Commissioner"'i*o::r"t'Norkhlerfshv-IComoensation in WCA 765/2001 from reeporadent veherinipioyee and the secoﬁd r_e'epoi1d'eh"t who is the appellant herein is not under 2i'n_ indemnify the same, in terms of . the Vehicle" =po_1iey issued by it t:o cover the tractor and V'traii:er by the fi res pondent.

A121 V__i'ewi.f~"of the appeal being allowed, the Statutory " airitount trydeposit is ordered to be refunded to the appeilant. gig;

4 eeeii JJ.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court