Dismissed

Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Basavaraj Gurusidda Sunkad

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022MFA/23142/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against a workmen's compensation award. The court affirmed the finding of an employer-employee relationship, held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, and rejected the argument that the policy excluded liability for coolies or that the specific mode of travel invalidates the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act provisions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the compensation award dismissed; award of Rs. 1,16,027/- with interest affirmed and amount to be transmitted to the Senior Civil Judge.

Divisional Manager, Vs Shri. Basavaraj… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

¶7

MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 23142 OF 2010 (WC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. NOW REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, SRI. V.C. SINGANNAVAR, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHRI. BASAVARAJ GURUSIDDA SUNKAD AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O JADHAV GALLI, PANTH BALEKUNDRI, TQ. and DIST. BELGAUM

¶14

SRI. PARAPPA MALLAPPA INAPURE R/O MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

¶17

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADV. FOR R1)

¶18

(R2-SERVED)

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:07-05-2010 PASSED IN KAPAKA/SR-129/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,16,027/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7.5% P.A., FROM 16-04-2007 TILL 07-05-2010 AND WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM 07-05-2010 TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is at the instance of the

¶25

appellant/Insurance Company calling in question the legality and validity of judgment and award dated 27.04.2010 in KAPAKA/SR No.129/2008 by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Belagavi (for short, ‘Commissioner’).

¶26

2. The claim petition was presented by the claimant on the allegation that he was working as Coolie in a Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-23/T-9561 & 9562 owned by respondent No.1-Sri. Parappa Mallappa Inapure and insured with the present appellant. Further allegation is that on 4.2.2005, while he was proceeding in the said tractor-trailer for transporting manure from Mole village of Athani Taluk, on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver, the claimant was thrown off and he suffered grievous injuries resulting in certain disability.

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶29

3. On claim petition being filed, both owner-

¶30

insured and the appellant/Insurance Company resisted the same by filing their separate statement of objections. The owner/employer admitted in the statement of objections both employer-employee relationship as well as employment related accident taking place as averred by the claimant.

¶31

4. During enquiry, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and he examined a qualified Medical Practitioner as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. RespondentInsurance Company examined one of its officials as RW1 and Policy of Insurance was marked.

¶32

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition in part awarding a compensation of Rs.1,16,027/- with interest thereon.

¶33

6. Sri. S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company advanced threefold contentions. Firstly, he contended that the

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶36

Insurance Company had issued only Farmers’ Package Policy which did not cover the risk of a coolie and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. Secondly, he contended that the claimant was traveling on the mudguard of Tractor which risk is not covered under the policy and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. His last contention is that the learned Commissioner has recorded a finding that the claimant had suffered physical disability to the extent of 35% resulting in loss in his earning capacity and the same is not covered under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and therefore, the appeal is required to be allowed and award as against the appellant/insurer is required to be set-aside.

¶37

7. Learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

respondent/claimant, per contra, contended that the learned Commissioner after a detailed appreciation of the evidence both documentary and oral and applying correct principles of law has recorded a finding that the employer-

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶41

employee relationship has been established and the accident resulting in injuries had taken place arising out of and in the course of employment and further that due to the injuries suffered, the claimant was not able to earn his livelihood in the manner he was doing earlier and accordingly, awarded compensation and since it is supported by evidence, such finding is not liable to be setaside and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed.

¶42

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and I have carefully perused the records.

¶43

9. The claim petition filed by the claimant was resisted by both employer as well as appellant herein. In the statement of objections filed, the insured/owner has admitted that there was employer-employee relationship and that the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant had taken place arising out of and in the course of employment. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶46

in the course of evidence, he had reiterated the said two aspects which has not been shaken during crossexamination and therefore, finding of the learned Commissioner that employer-employee relationship has been established is supported by evidence and I affirm the same.

¶47

10. Similarly, the evidence shows that the claimant had suffered injuries on account of accident which took place arising out of and in the course of employment.

¶48

11. In regard to the injuries suffered and resultant loss in the earning capacity suffered by him is concerned, he has given evidence before the learned Commissioner and he examined PW2, who is a qualified Medical Practitioner namely Orthopedic Surgeon and he has produced Wound Certificate (Ex.P3) and also Disability Certificate (Ex.P4). PW2-Orthopedic Surgeon has stated that the claimant had suffered injuries measuring about 50x20 cms over whole region of back (posterior) aspect of right leg with cellulites and the same is supported by

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶51

Wound Certificate (Ex.P3). After examining the claimant, PW2 has stated that there was gross restriction of knee movement over right leg including ugly scar and he has difficulty in standing and walking for a long time. He has given his opinion that the claimant had suffered physical disability amounting to 35% in respect of right lower limb. The learned Commissioner after applying his mind to the said aspect of the matter and also the fact that the claimant had suffered restricted movements in the right lower limb has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 35%. I affirm the same.

¶52

12. In regard to policy coverage is concerned, Ex.R2(1)-Policy of Insurance which is a Farmers’ Package Policy. The pleadings as well as the evidence shows that at the time of the accident, the tractor-trailer in question was proceeding for bringing manure. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the risk of injury suffered by

¶53

a coolie on account of the accident while the tractor-trailer was being used for bringing manure is not covered in the

¶54

¶55

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶56

said policy. In regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that there is no premium paid to cover the risk of a coolie in the tractor-trailer is concerned, the said aspect needs to be considered in the background of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, where there is compulsory statutory coverage for the risk of three persons in Light Goods vehicle which includes coolie. Tractor-trailer in question is regarded in law as Light Goods Vehicle. Therefore, the said contention is not liable to be accepted and accordingly, it is rejected.

¶57

13. In regard to the next contention that the claimant was traveling on the mudguard of the vehicle is concerned, throughout the pleadings as well as in the evidence, the claimant has referred to as traveling on the tractor-trailer and therefore, I do not find any material to come to a conclusion that the claimant was traveling on the mudguard of the vehicle. Therefore, I do not find any

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 23142 of 2010

¶60

merit in the said contention. In that view of the matter, absolutely, there is no good ground whatsoever to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner which is supported by evidence and his assessment of compensation of Rs.1,16,027/-/. Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶61

14. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Court of learned jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge along with records forthwith. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

JTR

Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Basavaraj Gurusidda Sunkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Basavaraj Gurusidda Sunkad

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

Smt. Rekha Dadaso Suryavanshi Vs Sri. Anil. Aatmaram. Nikkam

The Divisional Manager,National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt Rekha Dadaso Suryavaunshi

T Chandrababu @ Babu Chandra Modaliyar @ T.C. Balu Vs Smt. Vishalakshi T Kontiruvenkadasam

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Vs Rajesh S/O.Managalappa @ Mallappa

Sri. Channaveerayya S/O Basavanneyya Kulkarni, Vs Sri. Vishwanath S/O Rachappa Kulkarni

Anil S/O Amruth Vs the State of Karnataka