Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ramu on 23 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.24298 OF 2013 (WC)
C/W
MFA NO.24299 OF 2013 (WC)
MFA NO.24297 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELLARY DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...COMMON APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
IN MFA NO.24298/2013
AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O MARISWAMI
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:EX-CLEANER,
R/O RAMPUR, NOW R/AT RENUKA NAGAR,
TALURU ROAD, DIST:BELLARY.
2. SRI. A. ANAND S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
AGE:MAJOR, C/O SARASWATI TRADERS,
RAMPUR, MOLAKALMURUT TQ,
DIST:CHITRADURUGA.
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-35/295)
2
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-HELD SUFFICIENT) (R2-SERVED)
IN MFA NO.24297/2013
AND:
1. SRI. RAMU S/O DURGAPPA
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:EX-DRIVER,
R/O RAMPUR, NOW R/AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:BELLARY.
2. SRI. A. ANAND S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
AGE:MAJOR, C/O SARASWATI TRADERS,
RAMPUR, MOLAKALMURUT TQ,
DIST:CHITRADURUGA.
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-35/295)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADV. FOR R1)
(SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADV. FOR R2)
IN MFA NO.24299/2013
AND:
1. SRI. SHIVKUMAR S/O DURGAPPA
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:EX-LOADER,
R/O RAMPUR, NOW R/AT MOOKA ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, DIST:BELLARY.
2. SRI. A. ANAND S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
AGE:MAJOR, C/O SARASWATI TRADERS,
RAMPUR, MOLAKALMURUT TQ,
DIST:CHITRADURUGA.
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-35/295)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-HELD SUFFICIENT) (R2-SERVED)
3
MFA NO.24298/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECRODS CONNECTED WITH CASE NO.WC/NF NO.92/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, EXAMINE THE SAME
AND SET-ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 20.08.2013 AS AGAINST THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
MFA NO.24297/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECRODS CONNECTED WITH CASE NO.WC/NF NO.103/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, EXAMINE THE SAME
AND SET-ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 20.08.2013 AS AGAINST THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
MFA NO.24299/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECRODS CONNECTED WITH CASE NO.WC/NF NO.93/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, EXAMINE THE SAME
AND SET-ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 20.08.2013 AS AGAINST THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
COMMON JUDGMENT
These three appeals are by the insurer calling in
question the legality of the award dated 20.08.2013
passed in WC.NF Nos.92/2012, 93/2012 and 103/2012 by
the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Bellary
(for short, 'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that claimant-Ramu was working as
a Driver, claimant-Chandrashekhar was working as a
Cleaner and claimant-Shivakumar was working as a
Hamali in respect of lorry bearing registration No.
KA-35/295 owned by respondent No.1-A.Anand before the
learned Commissioner and insured with the appellant
herein. It is stated that on 28.1.2011, as per the
instructions of respondent No.1, these claimants loaded
the said lorry with Cucumber in Arekabavi and they were
proceeding to Bengaluru for unloading the same. When
the lorry in question was near Heggeri, it met with an
accident and fell into a ditch resulting in serious injuries
5
to these claimants and case in Crime No.32/2011 was
registered in Challakere Police Station.
3. Before the learned Commissioner, respondent
No.1-A.Anand remained exparte.
4. During the enquiry, the claimants examined
themselves as PW1 to PW3 and also one qualified medical
practitioner by name Dr.Laxminarayan and Exs.P1 to P7
were marked. The appellant-insurance company examined
one witness and got marked policy of insurance and DL
extract of driver-Ramu.
5. Upon consideration of the materials placed before
him, the learned Commissioner answered all the points for
consideration in favour of the claimants and against the
appellant-insurance company and awarded a compensation
of Rs.27,000/- each to the claimants-Chandrashekhar and
Shivakumar and Rs.1,51,389/- in favour of driver-Ramu
with interest thereon at 12% per annum.
6
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer
contended that the driver of the lorry in question, who is
one of the claimants herein, was not having valid and
effective driving license as on the date of the accident.
He submitted that the driving license held by the
claimant-Ramu (driver) had expired on 9.1.2000 and he
got it renewed only on 15.9.2011. He further contended
that since the accident took place on 28.1.2011 and the
driver-Ramu was not having effective and valid driving
license as on that day, the appellant/insurance company
is not liable to reimburse the compensation awarded
against respondent No.1/A.Anand, who is RC owner of the
vehicle in question. In this behalf, he places reliance on a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Beli
Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Another reported in AIR
2020 SC 4453.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant
and also I have perused the certified copies of records
7
made available to me by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that at the
material time i.e. 28.1.2011 when the accident took place,
the insured vehicle namely lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35/295 owned by respondent No.1-A.Anand was
driven by claimant-Ramu. A certified copy of Ex.R2(2)
which is made available to me by the learned counsel for
the appellant shows that the driver-Ramu had held DL for
driving heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 10.09.1997 to
9.1.2000, and thereafter, it was renewed only on
15.9.2011 upto 14.9.2014. From the said document, it is
evident that as on the date of the accident i.e. 28.1.2011,
driver-Ramu was not having valid and effective driving
license. The present case is squarely covered by the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Beli
Ram (supra), wherein it is held that the employer like
respondent No.1-A.Anand cannot wash his hands off of
responsibility of not checking up whether driver has
renewed license or not and if he does not ensure that the
8
driver to whom he has entrusted the insured vehicle for
the purpose of driving is holding valid and effective
driving license, the insurance company is not liable to
reimburse the compensation amount. In that view of the
matter, finding of the learned Commissioner that the
insurance company is liable to reimburse the
compensation is illegal and it is unsustainable. Hence,
the appeals filed by the insurance company are liable to
be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeals are allowed to the
extent that the direction in the impugned
award dated 20.08.2013 passed in WC.NF
No.93, 103 and 92 of 2012 by the learned
Commissioner insofar as fastening the
liability on the appellant-insurance
company to reimburse the compensation
amount awarded against the RC owner of
the vehicle in question is set-aside.
b) The amounts in deposit before this Court
shall be refunded to the
appellant/insurance company forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
