Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Shri Anwarbasha on 12 July, 2021

Author: P.Krishna Bhat

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         DHARWAD BENCH
               DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2021

                             BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                    MFA NO.24014 OF 2009 (WC)
                              C/W
                    MFA CROB NO.826/2010(WC)

IN MFA NO.24014/2009

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELLARY, REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580020.
                                                      ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SHRI. ANWARBASHA S/O SHAIKHBUDANSAB
       EX-DRIVER, R/O MARIYAMMANAHALLI,
       TQ:HOSPET, DIST:BELLARY.

2.     SHRI. ANJANAPPA S/O BALIYAPPA
       OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-35/AA-3456,
       HANUMANAHALLI, TALUK:HOSPET, DIST:BELLARY.

3.    SHRI. Y. TIMMARAJU S/O SURYACHANDRARAO
      POLICY HOLDER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-35/AA-3456
      R/O H.NO.6, INDIRA NAGAR, T.B. DAM, HOSPET TALUK.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                 2


     MFA NO.24014/2009 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.7.2009 PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1,
BELLARY IN WCA/NF-12/2007 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR
ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA CROB NO.826/2010

BETWEEN:

SRI. ANWAR BASHA S/O SHAIKBUDAN SAB
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:EX.DRIVER,
R/O MARIYAMMANA HALLI, TQ:HOSPET,
DIST:BELLARY.
                                             ...CROSS-OBJECTOR
(BY SRI.HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV.)

AND

1.    SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O BALIYAPPA
      AGE:MAJOR, OWNER OF VEHICLE
      NO.KA-35/AA-3456, R/O HANUMANAHALLI,
      TQ:HOSPET, DIST:BELLARY.

2.    SRI. Y TIMMARAJU S/O SURYACHANDRA RAO
      AGE:MAJOR INSURED VEHICLE OWNER
      KA-35/AA/3456 R/O NO.6, INDIRA NAGAR,
      T.B. DAM, HOSPET.

3.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
      ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      BELLARY.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R3)

     THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
CPC PRAYING THAT THE ABOVE ORDER DATED 21.7.2009 IN WC
NO.12/2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, DIVISION-1,
BELLARY, MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE ONLY INSOFAR IT PERTAINS TO
THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR AND ALLOW
                                    3


THE CROSS OBJECTION AS PRAYED FOR WITH COST IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

                             JUDGMENT

MFA No.24014/2009 is filed by the appellant-insurer

calling in question the legality and validity of the award

dated 21.7.2009 passed in WCA/CR No.12/2007 by the

learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, Sub-division-1, Bellary, by raising

substantial question of law to the effect that the insurance

company is not liable to be reimburse the compensation

as the RC owner-Sri.Anjanappa S/o Baliyappa, who is

respondent No.1 was not having insurance policy in his

name and therefore, there is no privity of contract

between the appellant-insurer and respondent No.2

herein.

2. The claimant has preferred MFA Crob No.826/2010

on the ground that the learned Commissioner has

committed an error of law in not awarding interest at 12%

per annum w.e.f. from thirty days from the date of the

accident.

3. Insofar as substantial question of law raised by

this Court at the time of admitting the appeal of the

insurance company is concerned, it is no doubt true that

at the time of the accident i.e. 25.9.2006, lorry in

question was standing in the name of respondent

No.1/Anjanapppa S/o Baliyappa and policy of insurance

was issued in respect of said lorry was still standing in the

name of respondent No.2/Y Timmaraju, who was the

previous owner of the said lorry. Precise contention of

the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that on

account of policy of insurance not having been transferred

to the name of respondent No.1/Anjanappa, current owner

of the lorry at the time of the accident, there existed

privity of contract between appellant-insurer and

respondent No.1/Anjanappa. Therefore, the insurance

company is not liable to pay compensation.

4. The matter is no longer res-integra in view of

decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007

(4) KCCR 2263 (M/s. United India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. M.N. Ravikumar and others), wherein it is held at

para-7 as follows:

"7. The contract o f insurance is a contract of inde mnity. The insurer is a inde mnifier. Insured is a inde mnity ho lder. The esse nce of contract of insurance is to indemnify insured against the claim of third party. The expression' third party' means a person who is not a party to the contract, but beneficiary o f the contract and has right to enforce the te rms of the contract against the insure r and the insure d. Section 147 of the M.V . Act mandates that the re should be compulso ry coverage of insurance fo r 1) passe ngers in public transport vehicle , 2) passe ngers trave ling in goods ve hicle along with goods and 3)the wo rkmen unde r the Workme n Compensation Act, emplo yed in connection with the mo tor ve hicle , e tc. T he statuto ry po licy issued Under Sectio n 147 of the M.V. Act in co mmon parlance is called as 'Act Po licy' . In the instant case , the deceased was working as a cleaner and the risk of the deceased was to be compulsorily cove red unde r the Act Po licy. W hethe r o r not the decease d was employe d by the insured, by deeming effect of Section 157 of the M.V. Act, the re is auto matic transfe r of po licy along with the vehicle whethe r or not the re is

intimation to the insurer unde r S ub-section 2 of Section 157 o f the M.V. Act. The S upre me Court in the abo ve cite d case, has he ld that in the case o f transfe r of the vehicle e ven without transfe r of po licy, the liabilit y of the insurer shall not cease in so far as the third party is conce rne d. The insurer, howeve r, has right of recove ry from the insured or from the transfere e. In that view of the matte r, the contention that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation is untenable . The que stion o f law is answe red acco rdingly."

5. In view of the above decision rendered by Division

Bench of this Court, the appellant/insurance company is

liable to reimburse the compensation.

6. The statute itself is very clear that on the award

amount, the claimants are entitled to receive interest at

12% per annum w.e.f. 30 days from the date of accident

and not subsequently. In this case, the learned

Commissioner has not awarded interest w.e.f. thirty days

from the date of the accident. It is therefore clear that

the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the award

amount at 12% per annum w.e.f. thirty days from the

date of the accident. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) Appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed.

b) Cross objection filed by the claimant is disposed of.

c) However, it is made clear that while maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the award amount at 12% per annum w.e.f. thirty days from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

d) The amount in deposit before this Court, if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court of learned Senior Civil Judge forthwith along with records.