Karnataka High Court
Shri.Mayappa S/O Siddappa Melad vs Shri.Vithal S/O Siddappa Melad on 28 October, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 112911 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MAYAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MELAD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NIL),
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI VITHAL S/O SIDDAPPA MELAD,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307,
(OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE BEARING
No. KA-49/J-4420)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally
signed by
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
VISHAL
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
BY ITS GOKAK BRANCH OFFICE,
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location:
Dharwad
Date:
NEAR BUS STAND ROAD, GOKAK,
2022.10.28
14:37:23
+0530
DIST BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
3. SMT. SADAVVA W/O SIDDAPPA MELAD,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
4. SMT. MAYAVVA W/O VITTAL MELAVANKI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
5. SMT. LAKKAVVA
W/O HANAMANTAPPA GIRENNAVAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
6. SHRI YALLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MELAD,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
7. SHRI.SIDDAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MELAD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
8. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
R/BY BRANCH MANAGER,
BUS STAND ROAD, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R8;)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI
BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.06.2019
PASSED ON I.A.NO.12 BY THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC, GOKAK IN E.C.A NO.23/2014 UNDER
ANNEXURE-M HEREIN AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 30.03.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 BY THE
I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK IN ECA
NO.23/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-H HEREIN BY ALLOWING THIS
WRIT PETITON AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING THE SAID I.A.
NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 R/W.151 OF CPC., IN
THE SAID ECA NO. 23/2014, AS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
HEREIN IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE
SAID COURT BELOW.
-3-
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner filed an application seeking for
compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. It
was his contention in the claim petition that he was
working as a driver in the tractor of the first respondent
since two years and that on 09.05.2014, when the
petitioner had come from the tractor garage to the market
on the motorcycle of the first respondent-employer for
purchasing the tractor's spare parts, all of a sudden, a
person came in front of the motorcycle and there was an
accident. Thus, it was the case of the petitioner as per the
averments in paragraph Nos.1 and 2 of the claim petition
that he was engaged as a driver for the tractor of the first
respondent and while he was traveling in the motorcycle of
the first respondent for the purpose of procuring spare
parts to the tractor, an accident had occurred.
2. The petitioner filed an application seeking for
impleading the insurer of the tractor by filing an
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
application in I.A. No.10. This application was rejected on
30.03.2017 and was not challenged by the petitioner.
3. Thereafter on the death of his employer and the
owner of the motorcycle i.e., the first respondent, the
petitioner filed another application for impleading the L.Rs.
of his employer and also the Insurance Company. This
application has been rejected on the ground that the
earlier application filed to implead the insurer of the
tractor had been rejected and had attained finality. It is
also held by the trial Court that the claimant was seeking
for compensation from the owner and insurer of the
motorcycle in the claim petition and therefore it was
impermissible for him to implead the owner of the tractor
i.e., his employer as respondent.
4. As stated above, as per the claim petition, the
petitioner had stated that he was working as a driver of
the tractor owned by the first respondent and in order to
secure spare parts to this tractor, he was driving the
motorcycle owned by the first respondent, when the
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
accident occurred. In other words, the case made out by
the petitioner was that during the course of his
employment while he was riding the motorcycle of his
employer for securing spare parts for tractor of his
employer, he suffered an accident and it was therefore
necessary that the insurer of the tractor be impleaded.
5. In my view, since the petitioner had laid out a
basis that he had suffered an accident during the course of
his employment, in the light of the judgment rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. DODDAHALLAPPA &
ANOTHER reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3599, it would be
necessary to allow the impleading application and implead
the L.Rs. of his employer and also the insurer of the
tractor.
6. The reasoning of the trial Court that the
claimant was claiming compensation only against the
owner of the motorcycle since the accident had occurred
while the petitioner was driving motorcycle is not entirely
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
correct in the light of the averments found in the claim
petition, which indicates that the petitioner had suffered
an accident during the course of his employment i.e., to
secure spare parts of the tractor, to which he had been
engaged as a driver. I am therefore of the view that the
order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained and
the same is set aside.
7. It is no doubt true that the earlier application
filed for impleading the insurer was rejected and the
second application has been filed for impleading the L.Rs.
of the employer as well as the insurer. It is to be borne in
mind that in a proceedings under a beneficial legislation
such as the Employees Compensation Act, a narrow or
technical view should not be adopted and there cannot be
an impediment for the claim of an employee to be
considered on a technicality. I am therefore of the view
that the dismissal of the application in I.A. No.10 would
not be an impediment for allowing I.A. No.2 in the larger
cause of justice. The impugned orders passed on I.A.
W.P. No.112911 of 2019
No.10 and 12 are therefore set aside and the petitioner is
permitted to implead respondent Nos.3 to 8 as
respondents in the in the claim petition.
8. It is however made clear that the petitioner will
have to establish the assertion of his that the accident
occurred during the course of his employment and his
employer would be liable to pay the compensation and as
a consequence, the insurer of the employer would have to
indemnify the award.
9. It is also needless to state that, it is open for
the insurer to put forth all such pleas that are available to
it to defeat the claim of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
