Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Chandregowda

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2020MFA/7836/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the insurer challenged the Commissioner's award of compensation. The Court applied the Supreme Court judgment in Mukund Dewangan to hold that driving a transport vehicle with a non-transport licence is not a willful disobedience of a rule if weight limits are met, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Commissioner's award awarding Rs. 4,27,140/- with interest to the claimants was upheld, and the amount in deposit was transmitted.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7836 OF 2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNDAM TOWERS NO.46, WHITES ROAD RAYAPETTA CHENNAI – 600 014 (REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) MR. SRIRAM ARUNACHALAM … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI M. ARUN PONNAPPA., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. CHANDREGOWDA S/O SRI. PARVATEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LR RESPONDENT NO.2

¶12

SMT. GANGAMMA, MAJOR W/O SRI. CHANDREGOWDA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT : BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI. P.G. JAYAPRAKASH, MAJOR S/O LATE GOVINDAN NAIR C/O SMT. PARVATHAMMA C. OBALA REDDY 1^ST FLOOR, SRINIVASA NILAYA NO.46/57/8, 13^TH MAIN

¶14

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶15

¶16

MASJID ROAD NEAR POPULAR MEDICALS VIRAT NAGAR BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV. FOR R2 V/O DATED: 07.11.2015 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT. V/O DATED: 31.01.2018, R2 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R1)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED: 29.07.2011 PASSED IN WC/F/SR-47/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,27,140/- WITH INTEREST.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Aggrieved by the award dated 29.07.2011 in WCA/F/SR-47/2010 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Hassan Division (‘the Commissioner’ for short), the Insurer has preferred the above appeal. By the impugned award, the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.4,27,140/- with interest to the claimants payable by the appellant Insurer.

¶23

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶24

¶25

The appellant was the second respondent, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the claimants and respondent No.3 was the first respondent in the claim petition before the Commissioner.

¶26

For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the Commissioner.

¶27

Claimant Nos.1 and 2 were the parents of deceased Naveen Gowda. Respondent No.1 was the registered owner of Maruthi Mini vehicle KA-51 9876 and respondent No.2 was the Insurer of the said vehicle at the relevant time. During the intervening night on 23/24.02.2010 when the deceased was driving the said vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident at 3.15 a.m. near Yakkundi village on Jamakhandi - Bijapur road. He died in the accident.

¶28

Claimants preferred the claim petition against the respondents under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 contending that they were the dependents of the deceased Naveen Gowda. They

¶29

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶30

¶31

further claimed that respondent No.1 had employed Naveen Gowda in the vehicle as driver, hence the accident arose out of and during the course of employment and they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶32

Respondent No.1 filed the written statement to

¶33

the claim petition admitting the jural relationship and that he was paying wages of Rs.6,000/- per month to the deceased. However, he claimed that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the second respondent was liable to indemnify the damages. The second respondent Insurer contested the claim petition on all grounds.

¶34

The parties adduced evidence. The Commissioner on hearing the parties held that the deceased was employed under respondent No.1 in the vehicle in question and death arose out of employment and during the course of employment. The Commissioner further held that the claimants were dependents of the deceased. The Commissioner

¶35

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶36

¶37

assessing the income of Rs.4,000/- per month, applied the factor of 213.57, awarded compensation of Rs.4,27,140/- and fastened the liability to respondent No.2-Insurer. The said award is challenged in this case on a very short point of validity of driving licence of the deceased.

¶38

7. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

¶39

i) Whether the workman was guilty of willful disobedience of Rule expressly framed ?

¶40

ii) Whether the award is sustainable in the light of exception as provided under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ?

¶41

Relying on Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act, it was contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor transport vehicle, but Ex.P7 shows that the deceased was holding licence to drive only light motor vehicle (non-transport), therefore by virtue of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer was not liable to pay

¶42

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶43

¶44

the compensation and consequently the Insurer was also absolved of its liability.

¶45

Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act says that if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Act. The proviso to clause (b) (ii) of Section 3 states that employer shall not be liable to pay compensation as stated in sub-section (1) in respect of any injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to the willful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of the employees.

¶46

Ex.P7 shows that the deceased was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) and that was valid from 23.05.2006 to 22.05.2009. In driving the transport vehicle with driving license of

¶47

M.F.A.NO.7836/2011

¶48

¶49

non-transport vehicle, whether deceased violated any rule was the question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶50

Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd¹ on reference of such issue held that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle (nontransport) can drive the light motor (transport) vehicle the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs and separate endorsement to drive such vehicle is not required.

¶51

The matter is fully covered by the judgment in Mukund Dewangan’s case. Therefore, there was no violation of any rule by the deceased workman. Consequently the award passed by the Commissioner is sustainable. Answering the substantial questions of law accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

¶52

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner/Civil Court. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

1 AIR 2017 SC 3668

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Chandregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Chandregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purushotham @ Billal Vs State by

Surajdev Trading Company Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee

N N Chikkanna @ Kumar Vs Sri B Krishnappa

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Laxman

Ramalingeshwara Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. H. Chinnappaiah