Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bijapur, v. Razak S/O Hazrathkha Pathan,Ors

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2014MFA/30224/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Military First Appeal regarding a W.C. claim. The court examined whether an insurance policy exclusion for hired vehicles barred compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased employee who was driving that hired vehicle at the time of an accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation to the respondents was discharged.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bijapur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA 30224/09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.30224 OF 2009 [WC]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Bijapur. … APPELLANT/S

¶10

[By Sri.Manvendra Reddy, Adv.]

¶11

AND:

¶12

Razak, S/o. Hazarathkha Pathan, Age: 57 years,

¶13

Mumtaz, W/o. Razak Pathan, Age: 52 years,

¶14

Mahaboobbee, W/o. Akheel Pathan, Age: 22 years,

¶15

Aishya,

¶16

D/o. Akheel Pathan, Age: 2 years, Minor and under guardianship of

¶17

MFA 30224/09

¶18

¶19

Respondent No.3 All are r/o. Horti Tq. Indi District, Bijapur.

¶20

Peerappa, S/o. Mahadev, Birajdar, Age: major, R/o. Wadakbal, Tq: South Solapaur, Dist: Solapur. … RESPONDENT/S

¶21

[Sri. S.V.Biradar, Adv. for R1 to R3. Sri. V.M.Biradar, Adv. for R5.]

¶22

¶23

This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act against the Judgment and Award dated 26.09.2008 passed in WCA.SR. No.50/07 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Bijapur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation of Rs.4,30,560-00 with interest at 12% p.a.

¶24

This MFA coming on for Orders, this day the Court delivered the following:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The appellant has challenged the Judgment and

¶27

Award of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, imposing the liability on the

¶28

MFA 30224/09

¶29

¶30

appellant to indemnify the owner, of the vehicle involved in the accident.

¶31

The facts reveal that Akheel, the husband

¶32

of the 3^rd respondent herein was a driver of the jeep bearing reg. No.MH-10 C-3389. On 14.05.2006, while he was driving the jeep, sustained severe injuries in the accident and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot. Respondents 1 to 4 being the parents, wife and daughter of the deceased, made a claim for compensation.

¶33

After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,560-00 as compensation with interest. Challenging the liability to pay the compensation, the insurer is in the appeal.

¶34

Though the matter has been heard and admitted on 08.11.2012, the substantial question of law was not raised. Anyhow, the following

¶35

MFA 30224/09

¶36

¶37

substantial question of law is raised for

¶38

consideration:

¶39

When the vehicle was hired on the date of the accident and the policy does not cover the liability of the inmates, whether the claimants [legal representatives of the deceased driver of the vehicle] could maintain a claim for compensation against the insurer?

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶41

parties.

¶42

It is the contention of learned counsel for

¶43

the appellant that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was hired and as the policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than the hire or reward, the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased driver are not entitled to claim compensation and there is a breach of condition of the policy.

¶44

MFA 30224/09

¶45

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal.

¶47

Admittedly, on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was carrying the passengers more than the permitted capacity on hire. So far as the limitation with regard to use of the vehicle is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has made available the copy of the insurance policy and it reveals the limitation as to use of the vehicle. The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than hire or reward and therefore, the learned counsel submits that as the vehicle was hired on the date of the accident, there is a breach of the condition of the policy.

¶48

It is relevant to note that the insurer has collected a sum of Rs.25-00 towards the liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for an employee on the vehicle. Admittedly, the driver [deceased

¶49

MFA 30224/09

¶50

¶51

Akheel] was employed by the owner to drive the vehicle on the date of the accident. Coverage of

¶52

the liability so far as the driver who is an employee is concerned, the contract between the employer and the insurance Company is to indemnify the owner in case if the accident occurs in the course of employment and out of the employment and the death was also during the course of employment. This contract between the insurer and the owner of the vehicle is separate so far as an employee on the vehicle is concerned. Breach of policy condition by hiring the vehicle applies to other inmates of the vehicle. Therefore, merely because on the date of the accident the vehicle was hired does not itself exempt the insurer from the liability to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased employee as the contract to indemnify the owner could be bifurcated and the conditions incorporated in the policy apply to the inmates of the vehicle other than the employees. As against the driver, there is an independent contract between the owner and the

¶53

MFA 30224/09

¶54

¶55

insurer. It is for this reason that the insurance company was held responsible to indemnify the owner of the vehicle by directing to pay the compensation.

¶56

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that so far as the claim in respect of the employee of the vehicle in question is concerned, the condition incorporated in the policy do not apply to the claimants and hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶57

The amount in deposit in this Court be transmitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner. The Office is directed to send back the records to the jurisdictional Commissioner.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE.

¶59

Ksm*

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bijapur, v. Razak S/O Hazrathkha Pathan,Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bijapur, v. Razak S/O Hazrathkha Pathan,Ors

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

Shri Bassangowda S/O Bapugowda Patil Vs the State of of Karnataka

Yuvaraj S/O Veerasangappa Vadavadagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Putalavva W/O Basavantraj Khedagi and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs a Laxman

Smt Yellamma Vs Amaranna

Basavaraj Vs Amaranna