Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Mr Venkatesh Naik on 22 July, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.21408 OF 2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMAKRISHNA COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, RAGHAVACHARI ROAD,
BELLARY-583 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.VENKATESH NAIK,
S/O.MUNIYA NAIK,
AGE: NOW AGED 44 YEARS,
OCC:EX-DRIVER, R/O.BANDEBASAPUR TONDA,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY.
2. MR.B.K.HUSSAIN,
S/O.B.K.JAFFER SAHIB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF JEEP,
BEARING No.APA-4122,
R/o. MAHABOOBNAGAR,
TQ: HOSPET DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD
2
DTD.30/11/2009, PASSED IN W.C.NO.24/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, BELLARY SUB DIVISION-2, BELLARY AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.45,494/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal at the instance of insurer calling in question
the judgment and award dated 30.11.2009 passed in
WC.No.24/2006 passed by the Labour Officer and Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner, Bellary Sub Division-II, Bellary (for
short 'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that claimant-Venkatesh Naik was
the driver in respect of Jeep bearing registration No.AP-A-
4122 owned by respondent No.1-B.K.hussain and insured
with the appellant herein.
3. On 13.11.2004 as per the direction of respondent
No.1-B.K.Hussain, claimant was driving the Jeep in
question from Kudligi to Mallapur for carrying pilgrims to
a jatra and at that time, a mini lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35/7406 dashed to the Jeep in question and due to
that impact, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. In
connection with the said accident a case in
Cr.No.122/2004 was registered by the Kudligi Police
Station.
4. Respondent No.1-B.K.Hussain filed written
statement before the learned Commissioner admitting the
employer-employee relationship between him and the
claimant and also the accident.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its
separate and detailed written statement denying the
material averments made in the claim petition and also
alleging that there is violation of the terms of the policy
by respondent No.1 and therefore, appellant is not liable
to reimburse the compensation.
6. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself
as PW1 and he examined one qualified medical
practitioner-Dr.Dinesh Gudi as PW2. Ex.P1 to P13 were
marked. Appellant-Insurance Company examined one of
its officials as RW1 and the Insurance policy was marked
as Ex.R2(1).
7. Learned Commissioner upon appreciation of
material produced and evidence let in, answered points
for consideration in favour of claimant and awarded a
compensation of Rs.45,494/- with interest thereon at 12%
per annum.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company strongly contended before me that policy of
insurance issued as per Ex.R2(1) by the appellant-
Insurance Company in respect of Jeep in question does
not cover the risk of the driver of the Jeep and it is an Act
of policy. It is also further contended by him that since
the jeep in question was a private car and policy of
insurance issued is for covering the jeep which is used as
private vehicle and respondent No.1 at that point of time
using the same to ferry the pilgrims to the jatra on fare
paying basis and therefore, there is violation of the terms
of the policy and in that view of the matter, appellant is
not liable to reimburse the compensation and therefore,
award passed by the learned Commissioner fastening
liability on the appellant is wholly illegal and the same is
liable to be set aside.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on either side and also perused the records.
10. A perusal of policy of insurance issued by the
appellant-Insurance Company in respect of Jeep in
question shows that Ex.R2(1) is issued as ' Private Car
Policy Act Liability only'. The premium calculated is for
third party basis and there is no risk covered of the driver
of the private jeep under the policy of insurance issued by
the appellant. Further Ex.P5 is a police complaint lodged
by the claimant-Venkatesh Naik himself before the Kudligi
Police station, based in which, the case in Crime
No.122/2004 was registered, in respect of the accident in
which the claimant suffered injuries. In the said
complaint, claimant himself stated that at the time of
accident, he was driving the Jeep carrying pilgrims to
jatra on fare paying basis. During the cross-examination
of the claimant-PW1, he has again admitted that he was
driving the Jeep carrying pilgrims to jatra on hire basis.
This clearly shows that the policy of insurance was issued
to a private car and which it did not cover the risk of
driver of the vehicle and it was used in violation of the
terms of the policy by carrying fare paying passengers
and therefore, there is violation of terms of the policy
issued as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company. The policy did not cover
the risk of the driver of the Jeep in question. In that view
of the matter, learned Commissioner could not have
fastened the liability on the insurance company including
interest on the same. Therefore, the award to the said
extent is illegal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part;
b) The impugned award dated 30.11.2009 passed
inW.C.No.24/2006 by the Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary
Sub Division-II, Bellary is set aside to the extent of
fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance
Company to reimburse the compensation with
interest is concerned.
c) Refund the amount in deposit, if any, to the
appellant-Insurance Company forth with.
d) Return the records to the learned Court below.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
