M/S.Oriental Insurance Company vs Sri Mohan K
2022 Latest Caselaw 2420 Kant

                                    1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                             BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2577 OF 2011 (WC)
BETWEEN:

       M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
       192, 2ND CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY,
       KORAMANGALA, 5TH BLOCK,
       BENGALURU-560034,
       THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICE,
       LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
       NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560025,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
                                                     ... APPELLANT
       (BY SRI B. S. UMESH, ADV.)
AND:

1.     SRI MOHAN K.
       S/O. HUKRAPPA GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT KORTHIYADKA HOUSE,
       CHOKKADY POST,
       AMARA PADNOOR VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK,
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

2.     MR. ILANGO
       S/O. T.S. KATRIVELU,
       RESIDING AT NO.192, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
       TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA,
       BENGALURU-560034.
                                                  ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI G. RAVISHAKAR SHASTRY, ADV., FOR R-1, &
           NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
            DATED 27-4-2016)
                               2



     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-1-2011 PASSED IN WCA:SR-14/2009(NF)
ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, D.K. SUB-DIVISION-2, MANGALURU,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.50,381/-.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company

calling in question the legality and correctness of the award

dated 18-1-2011 in WCA:SR-14/2009(NF) passed by the

Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, D.K. Sub-Division-2, Mangaluru,

2. Claim petition was filed on the allegation that the

claimant-Mohan K. was a Driver in respect of vehicle bearing

Registration No.KA-01 C-8350 owned by respondent No.1

(before the Commissioner) and insured with the appellant.

He has further averred that on 1-4-2008 while he was driving

the said vehicle, it met with an accident and he suffered

grievous injuries.

3. In response to the notice issued by the

Commissioner, respondent No.1 did not appear, but he sent a

letter to the Commissioner acknowledging in writing

admitting the employer and employee relationship between

him and the claimant and also the employment related

accident in which the claimant suffered injuries. Appellant-

Insurance Company contested the proceedings by filing a

written statement denying the material averments in the

claim petition, specifically, the appellant had taken a stand

that it was denying that respondent No.1 (before the

Commissioner) was the owner of the insured vehicle.

4. During trial, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1

and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. He examined a qualified

medical practitioner as P.W.2. R.T.O. official was examined

as P.W.3. Appellant-Insurance Company examined one of its

officials as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and

perusing the records, the Commissioner passed award in

favour of the claimant to a sum of Rs.50,381/- with interest

thereon.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company strenuously contended that the insured was one

Sai Bulk Transport and since the insured is not made a party

and instead Sri Ilango (respondent No.1 before the

Commissioner) is made a party, the claim petition is defective

and the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. He

further contended that the claimant has not established any

legal relationship between Sri Ilango and the insured-Sai Bulk

Transport in whose favour the vehicle concrete mixing

machine was insured. He further submitted that the

claimant was only driving a lorry on which the concrete

mixing machine was being transported and therefore, the

appellant is not at all liable to pay the compensation. He,

therefore, submits that the appeal is liable to be allowed and

the claim petition is liable to be dismissed as against the

appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant, per contra,

contended that R.W.1-official of the Insurance Company has

clearly admitted that Sri Ilango (respondent No.1 before the

Commissioner), owner of Sai Bulk Transport, in whose favour

the offending vehicle was registered and therefore,

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is without

any legal basis and it is liable to be rejected. He further

submitted that 'B' register extract produced by P.W.3-R.T.O

official clearly shows that the insured vehicle/machine was a

composite one namely concrete mixing machine mounted on

the lorry and therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that

the appellant is liable to pay compensation is completely

justified and there is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to

be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and

perused the records.

9. A perusal of the evidence of R.W.1-official of the

Insurance Company shows that he has admitted during

cross-examination that Sri Ilango (respondent No.1 before the

Commissioner) is the owner of Sai Bulk Transport and

therefore, it is not open for the appellant-Insurance Company

to turn round at this stage and contend that Sri Ilango has no

legal nexus with Sai Bulk Transport in whose favour policy of

the insurance was issued.

10. Perusal of Ex.P.14-'B' register extract produced by

R.T.O. official clearly shows that the vehicle was a composite

one with Registration No.KA-01 C-8350. The said 'B' register

extract shows that the engine number and chassis number of

the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01 C-8350 are the

same engine number and chassis number as shown in the

policy of the insurance issued by the appellant in favour of

Sai Bulk Transport to what is styled as concrete mixing

machine. The relevant documents are Exs.R.1 and R.2.

Engine and chassis number are the same numbers which are

given in Ex.P.14 with registration No.KA-01 C-8350 as per the

documents produced by P.W.3. The claimant at the material

point of time was driving composite engine, or concrete mixer

mounted on the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01 C-8350.

Besides Ex.R.1, Clause-3 in Ex.R.3 clearly shows that liability

of the Insurance Company covers the risk for the death, or

bodily injured of the Driver of the insured vehicle or machine.

In that view of the matter, there is no legal basis in the

contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company that it is not liable to pay the award

amount. The material produced and the evidence of P.W.3

and R.W.1 clearly show that what was insured under Ex.R.1

and R.2 are the composite vehicle/machine bearing

Registration No.KA-01 C-8350 which was driven by the

claimant at the time of the accident. Therefore, there is no

merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I

pass the following

ORDER

i. Appeal is dismissed, and

ii. Amount in deposit shall be transmitted along with

the records to the Court below, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kvk