The Divisional Manager vs Doddanagouda Jaraddi S/O ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2327 Kant

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         DHARWAD BENCH

              DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

                               BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                    M.F.A.NO.24756/2012 (W.C.)

BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HOSPET
REPTD. BY R.O., BY ITS ADM.OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA,
OPP: SBI ADM OFFICE,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI
                                                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADV.,)

AND
1.    DODDANAGOUDA JARADDI
      S/O SHANKARAGOUDA JARADDI
      AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR-TRO
      NO.KA-29/T-5763 AND 5764,
      R/O.AT AND POST: HIRE SHIVAVANAGUTTI VILLAGE,
      TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT

2.    KUMBAR TATAYYA S/O RAMAPPA
      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: EX.LABOUR
      R/O.2ND WARD,
      AT AND POST: PAPINAYAKANAHALLI,
      TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY
      NOW RESIDING AT: HULIGI,
      TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C S NAGASHETTI, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. DEEPAK C MAGANUR, ADV., FOR R2 - THROUGH V.C.)
                                     2


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30 OF W.C.ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2012 PASSED IN
WCA NO.20/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL.

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


                               ORDER

This appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 30 of the

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short "the Act") calling

in question the award dated 17.08.2012 in W.C.A.No.20/2011

passed by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation, Koppal (for short "the

Commissioner")

2. Brief facts are that the claimant-Kumbar

Tatayya was working as Hamali in tractor trailer

bearing No.KA-29/T-5763 and T-5764 owned by one

Doddagouda Jaraddi (respondent No.1 before the

learned Commissioner) and insured with the appellant

herein. It is stated that on 27.07.2010, when he was

working as Hamali in the tractor trailer, at about 3.30

a.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the

tractor, it fell into a ditch and claimant suffered serious

injuries.

3. In the proceedings before the learned

Commissioner, respondent No.1-R.C.owner filed his

written statement admitting the employer and employee

relationship between him and the claimant and further

that the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant

took place arising out of and in the course of

employment. He further stated in his written statement

that he was paying daily wages of Rs.200/- to the

claimant. He also admitted that his vehicle was covered

by policy of insurance issued by the appellant herein

and he was having valid driving licence to drive the

same.

4. During the enquiry, claimant examined

himself as P.W.1 and he further examined one qualified

medical practitioner as P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to P.15 were

marked. Appellant-insurance company examined one

witness and marked policy of insurance and R.C.

extract of the tractor trailer.

5. Upon consideration of the materials before

him, learned Commissioner answered the points arising

for consideration in the claim petition in favour of the

claimant and against the appellant herein and awarded

compensation of Rs.1,70,260/- with interest thereon.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously

contended before me that in view of the evidence

produced before the learned Commissioner showing that

at the time of the accident, tractor trailer was being

used for transporting sand, there is violation of the

terms of the policy and therefore, appellant is not liable

to reimburse the compensation. He submitted that it is

the stand of the appellant that tractor trailer was

permitted to use only for agricultural purpose as per

the terms of the policy.

7. I have perused the records. The policy of

insurance is produced before the learned Commissioner

as Ex.R.2(1). There is absolutely nothing mentioned in

the policy of insurance, nor was the learned counsel for

the appellant in a position to show me that the liability

of the insurance company, who is appellant herein has

been restricted under its terms when the tractor trailer

in question is used for agricultural purposes. Further

perusal of the policy of insurance shows that it covered

the risk of one coolie apart from the driver cum owner.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in

this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. However, it

is required to be noticed that the learned Commissioner

has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on

the compensation awarded from one month after the

date of the passing of the award. As per the terms of

the Act and catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the claimant is entitled to grant of

interest at 12% per annum from one month from the

date of the accident. Therefore, in this case also the

claimant is entitled to receive the interest at the rate of

12% per annum w.e.f. one month from the date of the

accident. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The above appeal is dismissed.

However, the claimant is entitled to grant of interest on the compensation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. one month from the date of the accident till entire realization.

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

             In     view      of    the     above,         pending
      interlocutory        applications,     if    any,        do   not

survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

yan