Karnataka High Court

Hanumantha S/O.Yamanappa Uppar vs The Divisional Manager on 19 July, 2021

Author: P.Krishna Bhat

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                        DHARWAD BENCH

             DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                              BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                   MFA NO.22435 OF 2009 (WC)
                             C/W
                  MFA CROB.NO.100104 OF 2014

MFA NO.22435 OF 2009
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELLARY
R/B THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
1ST FLOOR, UMAMAHESHWAR RAO BUILDING,
STATION ROAD, HOSPET -583201.
                                                    ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV.,)

AND
1.    SRI. HANUMANTH
      S/O YAMANAPPA UPPAR,
      AGE:NOW ABOUT 37 YEARS,
      OCC:COOLIE,
      R/O: GIRANICHAWL,
      TQ & DIST:KOPPAL

2.    KUMARI. SHOBHA
      D/O HANUMANTH,
      AGE:NOW ABOUT 14 YEARS,
      R/O: GIRANICHAWL,
      TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
      SINCE MINOR R/B RESPONDENT NO.1
                               2


3.   KUMARI. NAGAVENI
     D/O HANUMANTH,
     AGE:NOW ABOUT 10 YEARS,
     R/O: GIRANICHAWL,
     TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
     SINCE MINOR R/B RESPONDENT NO.1

4.   KUMARI GANGAMMA
     D/O HANUMANTH,
     AGE:NOW ABOUT 05 YEARS,
     R/O: GIRANICHAWL,
     TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
     SINCE MINOR R/B RESPONDENT NO.1

5.   SRI. CHANDRAPPA
     S/O NARASAPPA BANGALI,
     AGE:MAJOR,
     OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR
     NO.KA-37/T-7064,
     R/O. CHIKKABAGANAL,
     TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADV., FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR P PATIL, ADV., FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 - MINORS R/BY R1; R5- NOTICE SERVED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2008 PASSED IN
W.C.NO.66/2007 BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S    COMPENSATION,    KOPPAL   DISTRICT,   KOPPAL   BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.


MFA.CROB.NO.100104 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1.   SRI. HANUMANTHA
     S/O.YAMANAPPA UPPAR
     AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
     R/O. GINIGERA,
     TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
                                  3


2.    KUMARI SHOBHA
      D/O. HANUMANTHA
      AGE: 17 YEARS,

3.    KUMARI NAGAVENI
      D/O. HANUMANATH
      AGE: 15 YEARS,

4.    KUMARI GANGAMMA
      D/O.HANUMANTH
      AGE: 13 YEARS,

      CROSS-OBJECTORS 2 TO 4 ARE MINOR
      AND ARE REPRESENTED BY
      THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR FATHER,
      WHO IS CROSS-OBJECTOR NO.1

      ALL ARE R/O. GINIGERA,
      TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
                                            ...CROSS-OBJECTORS

(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADV.)

AND
1.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.

2.    CHANDRAPPA S/O. NARASAPPA BANGALI
      AGE: MAJOR,
      OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
      NO. KA 37/T-7664
      R/O.CHIKKABAGANAL,
      TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV., FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MFA CROSS-OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE
22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2008 PASSED IN
W.C.NO.66/2007    BY   THE     LEARNED   LABOUR   OFFICER   AND
                                 4


COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL,    PARTLY    ALLOWING       THE     CLAIM   PETITION   FOR
COMPENSATION        AND   SEEKING         ENHANCEMENT    OF    THE
COMPENSATION.


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


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal at the instance of the insurance company and

cross-objection at the instance of the claimants are filed calling

in question the validity of the award dated 31.07.2008 in

W.C.No.66/2007 passed by the learned Labour Officer and

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal District

Koppal (for short "the Commissioner).

2. Brief facts are that one Bheemavva was working as

coolie in tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-37/T-7064

and KA-37/T-4943 owned by respondent No.1/Chandrappa

Narasappa Bangali and insured with the United India Insurance

Company Limited. On 04.05.2005, as per the instructions of

respondent No.1-Chandrappa, deceased-Bheemavva was

proceeding in the tractor-trailer in question as a Hamali. The

trailer was loaded with bamboos and on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer in question,

accident took place and Bheemavva died due to the injuries. In

connection with the accident, a case in Crime No.92/2005 was

registered in Koppal Rural Police Station.

3. Respondent No.1-Chandrappa filed written statement

admitting the employer-employee relationship and also the

accident. The appellant insurance company filed a detailed

written statement denying the material averments made in the

claim petition.

4. One of the claimants, namely, the husband of the

deceased examined himself as PW1 and eyewitness, Mariyappa,

was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. One

employee of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and

respondent No.1 examined himself as RW2 and policy of

insurance was marked.

5. On appreciation of the evidence let in and the

materials produced, learned Commissioner awarded a

compensation of Rs.2,70,374/- with interest thereon at 12% per

annum. He fixed the wages of the deceased at Rs.2,600/- per

month.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company

has advanced two fold contentions. He submitted that the policy

of insurance issued to the tractor-trailer covered the risk only

when tractor-trailer was used for agricultural purpose and since

respondent No.1 used the tractor-trailer in question for

commercial purpose, the learned Commissioner was in error in

fixing the liability on the appellant-insurance company to

reimburse the compensation. He further contended that as per

the policy of insurance issued by the insurance company, it is

liable to reimburse the compensation only for the employment

related injury or the death caused to the driver and not for any

coolies. He also submitted that deceased was traveling in the

tractor and therefore, insurance company is not liable reimburse

the compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant, in support of the

cross-objection filed, submitted that learned Commissioner has

committed an error in taking the monthly wages of the deceased

at only Rs.2,600/- and it should have been considered @ at least

Rs.3,000/- per month. He, therefore, submits that the

compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is

unreasonably low and it should be enhanced suitably by allowing

the cross-objection.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on either sides and I have perused the

records.

9. The evidence produced before the learned

Commissioner shows that in support of the case of the claimant

an eyewitness PW2 was examined. He has stated that the

deceased was sitting in the trailer on bamboo sticks and on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor-

trailer, accident resulted and on account of the same, deceased

died on the spot itself. Respondent No.1-Chandrappa, the owner

of the tractor-trailer examined himself as a witness and he has

also stated about it in his evidence and the said evidence has not

been shaken during cross-examination. Respondent No.1 had

also filed a written statement before the learned Commissioner

admitting not only the employer-employee relationship but also

the employment related accident taking place in the manner

stated in the claim petition. Learned Commissioner, on

appreciation of the evidence placed before him, has recorded a

finding that the deceased had died while accompanying the

goods as a coolie in the tractor-trailer under respondent No.1

and therefore, the respondent No.1 and appellant-insurance

company are liable to reimburse the compensation. In that view

of the matter, I do not find any material on record to record a

finding that the learned Commissioner has committed an error of

law or that his finding is based on no evidence or perverse.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that

the tractor-trailer was being used for commercial purpose or that

the deceased was traveling in the tractor itself.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended

that the wages of the deceased taken at Rs.2,600/- is on the

lower side.

11. The accident had taken place on 04.05.2005. Upon

appreciation of the materials placed on record, learned

Commissioner has fixed the wages of the deceased at Rs.2,600/-

per month and therefore, such finding cannot be said to be

perverse or based on no evidence. Accordingly, I am not inclined

to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner that

deceased was earning wages at Rs.2,600/- per month.

12. On the compensation awarded by the learned

Commissioner, the interest as per statute itself is liable to be

granted w.e.f. 30 days from the date of the accident till the date

of deposit. In this case also the claimants are entitled to the said

benefit. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The above appeal and cross-objection are both dismissed.

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

In view of disposal of the appeal and cross- objection, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.