Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Shobha W/O Nagappa Gejji on 27 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23344 OF 2010 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. G. JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O NAGAPPA GEJJI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. HUNSIKATTI TANDA,
TALUKA: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI
2. GIRIYAPPA S/O THAKAREPPA LAMANI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF T/T/ UNIT,
R/O HUNSIKATTI TANDA,
TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
...RESPONDENTS
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
(R1 AND R2 - NOTICE SERVED)
Date: 2022.06.28
09:49:42 +0530
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT,1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:16/05/2009 PASSED IN WCA 204/2006, ON THE
FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.79,257/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
-2-
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY.
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of Insurance Company
calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment
and award dated 16.05.2009 in WCA No.204/2006 passed by
the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Haveri (for short "the Commissioner").
2. The brief facts are that one Smt. Shobha
Nagappa Gejji was the claimant and her claim petition
proceeded on the allegation that on 29.11.2005 while she
was working as a 'Hamali' in the tractor-trailer bearing
registration No. KA-27/T-8435,T-8436 owned by one
Giriyappa Thakareppa Lamani of Hunasikatti Tanda and
insured with the appellant, while loading stone in the land of
the owner-insured, she suffered injury on account of her two
fingers getting crushed under the back door of the tractor
trailer and they had to be amputated. On the claim petition
being filed, the owner-insured filed his written statement
admitting that the claimant was working as Hamali in the
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
tractor of respondent No.1. The appellant-insurance
company filed its statement of objections resisting the claim
petition.
3. During trial, claimant examined herself as PW1
and a qualified medical practitioner was examined as PW2.
Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. The appellant-insurance
company examined one of its officials as RW1 and policy of
insurance was marked as Ex.R1. After hearing the learned
counsel on both sides and perusing the records, the learned
Commissioner allowed the claim petition in part awarding a
compensation of Rs.79,257/- with interest thereon at 12%
per annum from the date of the award till the date of
payment.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company is that there is absolutely no
evidence to support the finding of the learned Commissioner
that the claimant had suffered employment related injuries
and further the evidence placed clearly shows that even as
per the evidence placed, there was violation of the policy
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
condition regarding use of the insured vehicle and the risk
covered under the policy inasmuch as it was an agricultural
policy and the purpose for which the vehicle was being used
at the time of the accident was commercial one and
therefore, he contends that the appeal is entitled to be
allowed and claim petition dismissed as against the insurance
company.
5. Both the respondents before this Court were
served with notice and have remained unrepresented.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and I have carefully perused the
records.
7. The claim petition proceeded on the allegation
that claimant was working as Hamali in the tractor-trailer
bearing registration No.KA-27/T-8435, T-8436, belonging to
the respondent-Giriyappa and insured with the appellant-
Insurance Company. Respondent-Giriyappa had filed a
statement of objections before the learned Commissioner
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
admitting that the claimant was working as Hamali in the
tractor owned by him and under his instructions. The
claimant has examined herself as PW1 before the learned
Commissioner and has spoken about the same. Nothing has
been elicited during the cross-examination so as to
disbelieve the version that there was employer-employee
relationship between the insured-owner and herself at the
time of the accident. Therefore, I am not inclined to disagree
with the finding of fact recorded by the learned
Commissioner on the aspect of employer-employee
relationship. The sheet anchor of the case of the learned
counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the
insured vehicle was covered with a policy of insurance by the
appellant-insurance company wholly for agricultural purpose
and at the material time it was being used for commercial
purpose inasmuch as it is stated in the evidence that vehicle
was transporting stones from the land of the insured-owner
to a crusher.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence of PW1-
Claimant. It is no doubt true that she has deposed about the
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
tractor transporting stones from the land of Giriyappa
Thakareppa Chavan, who is none other than insured-owner
himself. Even though in the cross-examination made on
behalf of the Insurance Company, it was attempted to make
a distinction between the surname of the owner namely
Lamani and Chavan, it is an undisputed fact that both the
surnames represent the same community namely Lamani
and the father's name being Thakareppa, which is that of the
owner, there is little doubt about the fact that the person
being referred to by PW1 is none other than the insured-
owner himself. The perfunctory nature of the cross-
examination made to PW1 in this behalf fortifies my
conclusion in this behalf. The respondents have not placed
any independent evidence to establish that Giriyappa
Thakareppa Lamani is somebody other than Giriyappa
Thakareppa Chavan referred to by PW1. Since the tractor-
trailer undisputedly insured with the appellant-Insurance
Company albeit for agricultural purpose which, as per the
evidence, was being used for transporting stones from the
land of the insured owner himself, there is nothing to
MFA No. 23344 of 2010
assume that it is for a purpose contrary to the purpose for
which insurance policy is issued and therefore, there is any
violation of the terms of the policy condition. In that view of
the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention of
the learned counsel for the insurance company. Accordingly,
I reject the same. In that view of the matter, there is no
merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the jurisdictional Senior Civil
Judge, Haveri along with TCR, forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration, and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
