Dismissed

M/S United India v. Shekara

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023MFA/541/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Company Limited (NLCI), M/s United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC) filed a miscellaneous first appeal challenging the judgment and award awarding compensation of Rs.1,02,340/- to a workman injured during employment. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant liable to pay compensation under the insurance policy despite the contention that the workman was engaged thr

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; respondent No.5 directed to withdraw deposit from Court; Trial Court records returned to Tribunal.

M/S United India Vs Shekara — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2019 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.114, CRESCENT ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHEKARA, S/O SEENAPPA, R/O KANATHI VILLAGE, KANATHI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI. BETTADAMARADI NAGESHGOWDA. S/O DEVEGOWDA. BETTADAMALALI ESTATE, NARIGUDDA POST, AVATHI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶16

SURENDRASHETTY, S/O SEENASHETTY, MAJOR, TIMBER ORGANISATION AND TRUST (REGD.) AVATHI BUILDING, MALLANDRU ROAD, CHIKKAMGALUR.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶19

SMT. POORNIMA, W/O NAGESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BETTADAMALALI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK.

¶20

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, YASHORAM CHAMBERS, R.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.72/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,02,340/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. AFTER EXPIRY OF 30 DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Aggrieved by the award passed in E.C.A. No.72/2014 dated 26.10.2018 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru, the Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability. The claim petition was

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶28

filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by

¶29

the workman during the course of his employment.

¶30

It is the case of the employee that he was employed by the second respondent on 12.04.2004 at about 1:30 p.m., he sustained injuries during the course of his employment. He was working as per the directions of the second respondent. He was engaged in shade looping work in the estate of the first respondent and he fell down from the tree. He sustained grievous injuries to his chest, left ankle and injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital, Chikkamagaluru for treatment. He had also sustained permanent disability.

¶31

First respondent has filed objections stating that

¶32

he skid from the standing tree of the respondent No.2. The claimant was employed by the second respondent. There is no employer - employee relationship. The coffee estate is insured with the National

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶35

Insurance Company and hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶36

The second respondent who had engaged the workmen was placed ex-parte. The National Insurance Company which is arraigned as respondent No.4 has denied the employer-employee relationship. The appellant herein i.e., the United India Insurance Company Ltd. who has issued a policy i.e., Ex.R.2 in favour of M/S. Timber Merchants Welfare Organization Trust, it is their case that the workman is not engaged by the second respondent. In fact, he was working in the first respondent's place on the instructions of the Mestri and there is no employeremployee relationship between the second respondent and the workman and respondent No.5 - the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation.

¶37

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the

¶38

National Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as he has not engaged the workman. It is

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶40

respondent No.5 who is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, directed respondent No.5 to pay an amount of Rs.1,02,340/- to the fourth respondent in respect of the award amount of the appellant. Further, the second respondent is liable to pay 12% interest on the total compensation after 30 days from the date of the incident, there is a payment of the entire amount.

¶41

The Court below had observed that in his cross examination, RW.2 has clearly admitted that Ex.R.2 - Insurance Company covers the labourers who are appointed for cutting, sawing, loading and unloading the timber. Since respondent No.2 is the member of the organization, it is not necessary to implead the organisation as party respondent to the petition and held that the appellant - United India Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs.1,02,340/- to the National Insurance Company who has already paid the amount to the workman.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. submits that the workman was not engaged by the second respondent. He was working as per the instructions as he has come through a Mestri. In such case, as per Ex.R.2, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. As he was working in the premises of the first respondent, as it is insured by the National Insurance Company, they have already deposited the amount, as such the appellant - Insurance Company has no liability.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Court below considering all the relevant factors had rightly directed the United India Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the National Insurance Company who has already paid the compensation to the workman and there is no irregularity with the order passed by the Court below.

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company submits that they have no employeremployee relationship with the workman and admittedly, he is engaged by the second respondent and the policy is insured by the appellant - Insurance Company. The Court below had rightly fixed the liability on the appellant - Insurance Company and directed the compensation to be paid to the National Insurance Company. He submits that no grounds are made out for seeking interference of the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶47

In this case, it is an admitted fact that Ex.R.2 - insurance policy covers the labourers who are appointed for cutting, sawing, loading and unloading the timber. It is the admission of RW.2 who is the officer of the United India Insurance Company examined before the Court

¶48

below. Even they do not dispute the fact that on the instructions of the second respondent, the workman was working on the premises of the first respondent. The only defense taken by the Insurance Company is that the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶51

workman was not directly engaged by the second respondent, but he was working through a Mestri. Hence,

¶52

he is not covered as per the policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. This Court is not able to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The workman, if he is working through a Mestri or directly engaged by the second respondent, he is discharging the duties of a labourer who is appointed for cutting the timber. Once that is the case, he is covered by the policy.

¶53

The United India Insurance Company who had insured the policy Ex.R.2 is liable to pay the compensation, the Court below rightly directed the appellant - Insurance Company

¶54

to pay the amount to National Insurance Company. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere the award passed by the Court below.

¶55

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:45217 MFA No. 541 of 2019

¶57

i. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Court below and the respondent No.5 - National Insurance Company Ltd. is at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

¶58

ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶59

iii. No costs.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/JUDGE

¶62

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT: BHK

M/S United India v. Shekara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India v. Shekara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Yunus Vs Sri Nagesh

Sri Sundhara Raj C Vs M/S the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. Rudresh Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Thahira Banu Vs Mr. Prabhakara Acharya

Kamala Vs S. v. Yogish

Legal Manager Vs Sri G Chowdappa