Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Sharanavva Pujar on 28 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.22755 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER (CLAIMS)
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR
5TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR
3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHARANAVVA PUJAR
MOTHER OF THE DECEASED
R/O. NIDAGUNDI VILLAGE
RON TALUK, DIST: GADAG.
2. SRI. RANAGABATH RANGAPPA PATROTI
S/O. RANGAPPA PATROTI
OWNER OF TRAX CRUISUER NO.
KA-26/5820
R/O. NIDAGUNDI VILLAGE
TALUK : RON, DIST : GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
2
(NOTICE TO R.1 AND R.2 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL THE
RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR
BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED BY THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY, IN WCF 327/2009 WITH
COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Insurer - Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. has come up in
this appeal under Section 30(1) of Employees Compensation Act,
1923, calling in question the award dated 28.02.2012 in WCF
327/2009 passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bellary.
2. Brief facts are that, deceased Sharanayya Poojar
@ Sharanayya Shivappa Pujar was working as driver in
Trax - Cruiser bearing No. KA-26-5820. It is stated that
on 19.02.2009 at about 4.45 a.m. while he was driving
the said vehicle on National Highway No.63 near Veni
Veerapur Akwapan an accident took place and due to the
impact, he died. During the claim proceedings,
respondent No.1 - insured, entered appearance and filed
a written statement admitting the employer-employee
relationship between himself and the deceased and further
that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased
had taken place arising out and in the course of
employment. He further admitted that he was paying a
monthly wage of Rs.4,500/- and the vehicle was insured
with the appellant.
3. Appellant herein filed a separate written
statement admitting the policy of insurance issued by him
to the offending vehicle and it was in currency at the time
of the accident. It has further stated in the written
statement that deceased was not having valid and
effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. During
the enquiry, claimant examined herself as P.W.1. Exs. P.1
to P.9 were marked. Appellant - Insurance Co. examined
one witness by name Suresh and one document was
marked as Ex.R.1.
4. Upon consideration of the materials produced and
the evidence let it, learned Commissioner answered the
points arising for consideration in favour of the claimants
and against the appellant and awarded a compensation of
Rs.3,89,280/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Co.
strenuously contended before me that at the time of the
accident the vehicle was over loaded and was transporting
passengers beyond the number permitted under the
Permit issued to the vehicle. It was also contended that
though the vehicle as per the permit issued was a contract
carriage vehicle, at the time of the accident it was being
used as a stage carriage and therefore there is violation
of the terms of the policy and appellant is not liable to
reimburse the compensation to the insured. it was also
contended that the deceased was not having valid and
effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle which
was a passenger vehicle as he was in possession of
LMV(NT) driving licence. It was therefore contended that
substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this
appeal and the appeal is entitled to be allowed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
averments made on behalf of the appellant and I have
perused the record.
7. It is no doubt true that carrying passengers in a
passenger vehicle more than the permitted capacity is a
significant violation of the terms of the insurance policy.
However, the appellant - insurer has not produced any
acceptable evidence before the learned Commissioner to
show that at the material time the offending vehicle was
carrying more number of passengers than it was
authorized to transport. The appellant did not choose to
examine any of the passengers who were traveling in the
said vehicle. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
substantial question of law arising for consideration on
that score.
8. Similarly, even though a contention has been
raised to the effect that in spite of the offending vehicle
having a permit to ply as a contract carriage, the insured
was using it as a stage carriage and, therefore, there is
violation of the terms of the policy. Perusal of the award
shows that no such material supporting the said
contention was placed before the learned Commissioner
and therefore, I do not find any substantial question of
law arising for consideration on that score as well.
9. In so far as the contention that the deceased was
having only driving licence authorizing him to drive LMV
(NT) and the offending vehicle being a passenger vehicle
he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle is
concerned, such contention is rendered untenable in view
of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. - 2017 14 SCC 663.
10. Perusal of the award shows that learned
Commissioner has recorded findings based on evidence
and I do not find anything to hold that the award passed
by the learned Commissioner is perverse. Accordingly, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration and
accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence,
the following :
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the
jurisdictional Court of learned Senior Civil Judge,
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mgn/-
