Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rajiya Begum W/O. Late Memboob ... on 21 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.22671 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
OPP:B.D.O OFFICE, BUS STAND ROAD,
SINDHANUR, REP. THROUGH
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL,
REP. BY IT'S THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAJIYA BEGUM W/O LATE MEMBOOB PHASHA
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
2. KUMARI NAJEEMA BEGUM D/O LATE MEMBOOB PHASHA
AGE:16 YEARS,
3. KUMAR SHAHANA D/O LATE MEMBOOB PHASHA
AGE:14 YEARS,
4. KUMARI SANA S/O LATE MEMBOOB PHASHA
AGE:12 YEARS,
5. KUMAR SOHIL S/O LATE MEMBOOB PHASHA
AGE:7 YEARS,
6. KUMAR KHAJA S/O LATE MEMBOOB PHASHA
2
AGE:5 YEARS,
7. RAMJAN SAB S/O SHAMID SAB
AGE:61 YEARS,
8. SMT. SHAIBI W/O RAMJAN SAB
AGE:51 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE MINORS
REP. BY MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O NEERAMANAVI
TQ:MAANAVI, DIST:RAICHUR,
NOW RESIDING AT TAVARAGERA,
TQ:KUSHTAGI, DIST:KOPPAL.
9. AADEPPA S/O AMARAPPA
R/O TORANADINNI, TQ:MAANAVI
DIST:RAICHUR, NOW RESIDING AT
NEERAMANAVI, TQ:MAANAVI,
DIST:RAICHUR.
(OWNER OF AUTO NO.KA-36/5885)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.H. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1-R8)
(R2 TO R6 ARE MINORS REP.BY R1) (R9-HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH CASE NO.WCC/F/60/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET-
ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 30.04.2013 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The insurer-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has
come up in this appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, calling in question
the award dated 30.4.2013 in WCC/F-60/2012 passed by
the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Koppal District, Koppal
(for short, 'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that the deceased Mehboob Pasha
is the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimants 2 to 6
and son of claimants 7 and 8. The allegation in the claim
petition is that the said Mehboob Pasha was working as
Auto Driver in Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-
36/5885 owned by respondent No.1 before the learned
Commissioner and insured with appellant herein. It is
stated that on 6.7.2012, when he was driving the said
Auto, he met with an accident, and due to the impact
injuries, he died.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the
appellant/insurance company. The owner, who was
respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner
remained exparte.
4. During the enquiry before the learned
Commissioner, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1
and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked, among which Ex.P9 was
the RC of Auto-rickshaw concerned and Ex.P10 was policy
of insurance. The appellant-insurance did not examine any
witness.
5. Upon consideration of the entire materials, the
learned Commissioner answered all the points for
consideration arising in the claim petition in favour of the
claimants and against the appellant/insurer and awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,63,780/- with interest thereon at
12% per annum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company contended before me that in the complaint
lodged before Police, one Mahiboob, who is brother of the
deceased had claimed that Auto-rickshaw in question was
belonging to him and since insurance policy was issued by
the appellant-insurer in favour of one Adeppa, who was
respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner, there
is violation of policy conditions and therefore, the learned
Commissioner was in error of law in fastening the liability
on the appellant/insurance company to reimburse the
compensation. She further contended that the deceased,
who was driver of the Auto-rickshaw in question was
having DL which was LMV(NT) and since Auto in question
was a passenger Auto, he was not having effective and
valid driving license. Therefore, the appellant is not liable
to reimburse the compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1
to 8 opposed the said submission and contended that no
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this
appeal. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. In regard to contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that Auto-rickshaw did not belong to
respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner and
complainant in the police complaint claimed that it
belonged to him is concerned, the RC of the vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-36/5885 was produced and
marked before the learned Commissioner as Ex.P9, which
clearly shows that w.e.f. 23.2.2011, vehicle in question
stood transferred to the name of one Aadeppa S/o
Amarappa who is respondent No.1 before the learned
Commissioner. Therefore, the said claim made by one
Mahiboob in the police complaint is wholly untenable.
Therefore, the contention advanced before me, based on
such complaint, by the learned counsel for the appellant
has no merit and I reject the same.
9. Similarly, Ex.P10 shows that policy of insurance
was standing in the name of RC owner/Aadeppa, who was
respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner.
10. The second contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the deceased was holding
driving license which was effective for driving LMV(NT)
and the vehicle in question being a passenger Auto, the
said driving license is not a valid one has become
untenable in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2017
(SC) 3668, and accordingly, I reject the said contention.
11. In view of the above, I find no substantial
question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is dismissed.
b) The amount in deposit before this Court,
if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the
jurisdictional Court of learned Senior Civil
Judge forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
