Partly allowed

Divisional Manager v. Ananda Ningappa Chavan

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2012MFA/11022/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Misc. First Appeals regarding workmen's compensation claims, the Karnataka High Court held that for accidents involving two-wheelers, the vehicle owner is the primary liable party for compensation, not the insurance company. Consequently, appeals by NPCIL were allowed regarding specific claims, dismissing others.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awards in MFAs 11025 and 11027 set aside as insurer not liable for two-wheeler accidents; amounts to be deposited by vehicle owner. Other appeals dismissed.

Divisional Manager Vs Ananda Ningappa Chavan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD

¶2

Dated the^3rd day of July 2012

¶3

:BEFORE:

¶4

HON’BLE MRJUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 11022 / 2005 C/W M,F.A.Nos. 11024, 11025 & 11027 I 2005 (WC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE C0.LTD., HUBLI, NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE. SUBIIARAM COMPLEX 144 M.G.ROAD BANGALORE 1

¶7

.Appellant (Common)

¶8

(By Sri Ravindra R.Mane, Advocate.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

IN M.F.A. No. 11022 / 2005:

¶11

ANANDA NINGAPPA CHAVAN AGED MAJOR RIO SAIDAPUR DANDINA ONI DHARWAD

¶12

IN M.F.A. No. 11024 / 2005:

¶13

I. K.CHANDRUGOUDA @ CHANDRU, S/O NINGANAGOUDA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O KODIYALAPURA, TQ: HANAGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶14

IN M.F.A. No. 11025 / 2005:

¶15

1, JAFAR,

¶16

¶17

S/O KHANASAB ACHHAMMANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O MALAPURA, KURUBARA ONI, DHARAWAD.

¶18

IN MF.A, No. 11027 / 2005:

¶19

YALLAPPA,

¶20

5/0 BASAPPA, AGE: MAJOR,

¶21

R/O MAVAKOPPA, HANAGAL TALUK,

¶22

HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶23

IN M.F.A. Nos. 1 1022, 11024, 1 1025 & 11027 / 2005:

¶24

MARU EHI NINGAPPA CHAVAN AGE MAJOR, OWNER OF VEHICLE RIO SAIDAPUR DANDINA ONI

¶25

DHARWAD

¶26

Respondents

¶27

(By Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, Advocate for R- 1 & Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-2 in

¶28

M.F.A.Nos. 11024, 11025 & 11027/2005.)

¶29

MFAs FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.7.2005 PASSED IN Nos. WCAINF- 148/2004, WCA/NF- 149/2004, WCA/NF- 150/2004 & WCAINF-151/2004 RESPECTiVELY, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 84.989’- AND INTEREST RS.10.451 -. RS.75.730/- AND INTEREST RS.9,310/-. RS.73.439/- AND INTEREST RS.9.076’- AND RS.60.131/AND INTEREST RS.7.394/- RESPECTIVELY. AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME.

¶30

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

quantum of compensation as well as grant of interest judgment passed by the W,C. Commissioner, Haven, respondents-applicants Insurance these appeals the herein. arise out Company, which is in appeal, is aggrieved by both the common allowing the claim applications filed by the respective The from the date of filing of the applications. All of

¶34

that Rs.84,989/Rs.75,730/submits Insurance respect of the claim applications of Ananda Ningappa Chandrugouda (; Chandru, the award of learned awards and insofar the concerned, which are for higher amounts, the Insurance counsel as respective applicants before the Commissioner. first Thus, in Chavan and seriously called in question. not the Company Company is liable to pay the compensation in view of respectively are also coverage of two employees under the policy. The accident having occurred on 27.2.2004 is not in dispute and The is However, it is submitted two for so also the injuries suffered by the 2.

¶35

¶36

that in respect of the awards in favour of Jaffar for Rs.73,439/- and Yallappa for Rs.60,131/-, it is for the owner of the vehicle to shoulder the liability.

¶37

Jafar disputed by the learned counsel for the respondentspassed applicants and he awards applicants submission counsel for the appe11antInsurance Company is not submitted that in respect of the and made the learned owner of the vehicle. Yallappa, the compensation is liable to be paid by the in favour The above by of 3.

¶38

interest this the date the appeal memorandum, no ground is urged in respect of ground consideration. Thus, what remains is as to the grant of interest. application award date not the respective applicants i.e., application. Therefore, also does survive The W.C. Commissioner has awarded interest at 12% from from from 20.7.2004. by 4. of filing of the In the of of for

¶39

Insurance appellant-Insurance appellant-Insurance respect and cases, the liability to pay compensation is on the owner refunded the the therefore, Company are Company. not Company. be For the above reasons, the appeals filed by the allowed vehicle only in on The amount in deposit in these two cases, M.F.A.Nos, 11025 and 11027/2005 and in the said two of of the to 5.

¶40

M.F.A.Nos. deposit in the said cases be transferred to the W.C. Consequently, the other two appeals Commissioner. 11022 & 11024/2005 are dismissed. The amount in

¶41

sd/

¶42

ckc/

Divisional Manager v. Ananda Ningappa Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager v. Ananda Ningappa Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal S/O Bapu Dhumale @ Bagadi Vs N Shivayogi

The Managing Director Vs Basanagouda Shivanagouda Manikatti

Shivaling S/O Basappa Savalagi Vs Bhimappa Siddappa Kamari

The Committee of Management of the Jeevasamadhi of Vs the Commr Hindu Religious and Charitable

Vinod S/O Keshav Reddy, Vs Smt. Santhosh Kumari W/O Late Krishna Dev

Taufeeq Gaibusab Pathan Vs the Divisional Controller