Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smt Indiramma on 26 May, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A. NO.7502/2016 (WC)
C/W.
M.F.A. NO.4205/2017 (WC)
IN M.F.A. NO.7502/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
E-8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE
BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD
OFF BG ROAD, IIM POST
BANGALORE - 560 076. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. INDIRAMMA
W/O LATE ONKARAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
COOLIE WORK.
2. AKSHITHA
D/O LATE INKARAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
2
MINOR, STUDENT
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
I.E., PETITIONER-1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN
3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
COOLIE WORK
ALL ARE R/O.
MEDEHALLI UPPARCHATTI VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577501.
4. H. NAGARAJ
S/O HANUMAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/O PEDDATHIMAIAHANAPALYA
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE;
RESPONDENT - 2 IS MINOR & REPRESENTED BY R1;
SRI N.R.RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.19/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
COMMISSIONER FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.4205/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. INDIRAMMA
W/O LATE ONKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
COOLIE WORK
3
2. AKSHITHA
D/O LATE ONKARAPPA
AGE: 10 YEARS
STUDENT, MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
AS NATURAL GUARDIAN
3. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS
COOLIE WORK
ALL ARE R/O.
MEDEHALLI UPPARAHATTI VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577 501.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H. NAGARAJA
S/O HANUMAPPA
MAJOR,
OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-18/9525
R/O PEDDATHIMMAIAHANAPALYA
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN STATE -302022
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.R.RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
4
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2016
PASSED IN ECA.NO.19/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR COMPENSATION
AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the claimants as well as the
Insurance Company challenging the judgment an award dated
01.09.2016 passed in E.C.A.No.19/2015 on the file of the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Compensation at Chitradurga (for short 'the Commissioner')
questioning the quantum of compensation and also the liability.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Commissioner is that the first and second claimants
are the wife and son of the deceased Onkarappa and third
claimant is the mother of the deceased Onkarappa. The
deceased was working as a coolie (loader and un-loader) in a
lorry bearing Reg.No.KA18-9525 under the employment of
respondent No.1. On 25.01.2012 at about 6.00 p.m., he along
with other hamalies after loading cotton bales at Jagalur,
boarded said lorry for unloading and proceeded towards
Chitradurga. When the lorry reached near Bogalerahatti Gate,
NH-13 road, Chitradurga taluk, the driver of said lorry drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and ran
over towards road side ditch. As a result, Onkarappa who was
sitting on the loaded cotton bales fell down from the lorry and
sustained severe injuries and while shifting to the Government
hospital at Chikkagondanahalli, he died on the way. PM was
conducted at Chitradurga Government hospital and the claimants
have performed funeral ceremony, rites and rituals by spending
Rs.50,000/-. The claimants further contended that the deceased
Onkarappa was very healthy and was getting salary of
Rs.6,000/- per month and batta at Rs.100/- per day. Due to
untimely death of Onkarappa, the claimants are suffering from
mental shock, agony, loss love and affection. Hence, prayed the
compensation.
3. In pursuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through their respective counsel and filed their
separate written statement. Respondent No.1 denied the entire
averments and called upon the claimants to prove their claims.
Further it is contended that offending lorry is insured with
respondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of the
accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants
is highly excessive, abnormal, exorbitant and not in accordance
with law. It is further contended he has paid Rs.10,000/- to the
claimants for shifting the deceased to the hospital and to his
native place for performing funeral ceremony.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the
written statement contended that the driver of the lorry was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of
accident. Even though, respondent No.1 has allowed the driver,
who possessed no driving license, to drive hence, has violated
the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The relationship
between the claimants is disputed contending that they are not
the dependants. It is contended that respondent No.1 has used
the said vehicle for carrying passengers and the said lorry is
meant for transportation of goods but respondent No.1 knowing
the said fact, permitted the deceased to travel as gratuitous
passenger. Respondent No.1 has not paid premium towards said
risk and violated the policy, RC and permit conditions. There is
no relationship of employer and employee between respondent
No.1 and the deceased. Hence, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation.
5. The Commissioner having considering the pleadings
of the parties framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. The claimants in order to prove their case, first
claimant got examined herself as PW1 and one witness as PW2
and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other
hand, respondent No.2 examined its Legal Officer as RW1 and
got marked the document at Ex.R1. The Commissioner having
considered the material available on record answered Issue No.1
as affirmative and granted the compensation of Rs.6,35,370/-
and also directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, these appeals
are filed.
6. The learned counsel for appellants/claimants in MFA
No.4205/2017 vehemently contends that the Commissioner has
grossly erred in taking the wages of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-
per month though the evidence on record goes to shows that the
deceased was a loader and un-loader in the lorry and he used to
earn more than Rs.6,000/- per month as wages and Rs.100/-
per day as batta hence, the same is liable to be enhanced. The
contention also raised that the Commissioner has grossly erred
in awarding interest at 9% p.a. from the 30th day of the accident
till realization and hence, the same is liable to be enhanced.
Hence, this Court has to consider the points regarding quantum
of compensation as well as with regard to the interest.
7. The learned counsel in support of his argument
would vehemently contend that the very contention of the
Insurance Company that Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rule 100 of 1989') applies hence,
liability on the Insurance Company does not arise and the said
contention cannot be accepted since it is only the claim under
the Workmen Compensation Act and the Insurance Company is
statutorily liable under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for
short 'the M.V.Act') and also under Section 3 of the Workmen
Compensation Act (for short 'W.C. Act'). The counsel also
submits that though Insurance Company would contend that
there is no relationship of employer and employee, respondent
No.1 categorically admitted that deceased was a coolie under
him. The counsel also would contend that extra premium was
paid and IMT 40 also mentioned in the policy hence, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation
contractually and statutorily and the Court also committed an
error in granting interest at 9% p.a.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants in support of
his argument relied upon the judgment passed in MFA
No.10463/2011 and MFA Crob.No.24/2012. The counsel would
vehemently contend that in the said judgment it is categorically
held that Rule 100o of 1989 is not applicable and also held that
coolies who are employees in a goods vehicle are compulsorily
covered under Section 147 (1)(b) of the M.V. Act and apart from
that premium is also collected hence, the Insurance Company
cannot avoid its liability.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company in MFA No.7502/2016 would vehemently contend that
the finding of the Commissioner that there is a employer and
employee relationship between the insured and the deceased is
nothing but a perverse finding and the same is not based on
proper appreciation of the evidence and documents produced
before the Court hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It is
contended that the police documents clearly demonstrate that
the deceased was working as a Hamali in RMC yard at
Chitradurga and hence, it is clear that he was not working as a
loader and un-loader under respondent No.4 and there was no
employer and employee relationship between the insured and
the deceased. On the date of the accident, he was traveling only
as gratuitous passenger in the insured goods vehicle along with
other persons and therefore, the Commissioner ought to have
held that the deceased was traveling in the insured goods
vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. It is also contended that the
documents produced by the claimants and evidence on record
clearly demonstrate that the deceased was traveling from one
city to another city in a goods vehicle against the Karnataka
Motor Vehicle Rules and against the conditions of the policy and
hence, the Commissioner ought to have fastened the liability on
the owner of the vehicle instead of Insurance Company.
10. It is further contended in the appeal that the
Commissioner ought to have seen that the documents produced
by the claimants and the evidence placed on record which clearly
demonstrate that the deceased was traveling on the carriage of
lorry and not in the cabin and also contended that he was sitting
on the carriage of the lorry which was completely loaded with
cotton bales in a dangerous position, which makes clear that this
is a clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy,
provisions of the Act, permit issued by the RTO authorities and
against the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence, the
Commissioner ought not to have fastened the liability on the
Insurance Company. It is also contended that it is a case of
clear violation of Rule 100 of 1989 and at any stretch of
imagination, liability should not have been fastened on the
Insurance Company and hence, the Commissioner committed an
error in considering the factual aspects and also the question of
law. Hence, it requires interference by framing the points that
whether the finding of the Commissioner is correct in holding
that there was a employer and employee relationship between
the insurer and the deceased and whether the liability fastened
on the Insurance Company is in accordance with law.
11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company in
support of his arguments, mainly contends that the averments
made in the claim petition is that the deceased was a co-worker
as a loader and un-loader in the lorry. But considering the
pleadings and evidence it is clear that he was working as a coolie
in RMC yard and not an employee under respondent No.1. The
counsel would vehemently contend that he was a paid passenger
and material discloses that he was proceeding in the carriage
lorry. The Commissioner fails to take note of Rule 100 of 1989,
sub-sections 1, 3 and 4 of the said Rules and as per said Rules,
the deceased cannot sit and travel on goods vehicle. The
counsel also submits that the material discloses that he was
traveling from Jagaluru to Chitradurga i.e., from one city to
another city and the same is also prohibited under Rule 100 of
1989. The counsel would vehemently contend that the
Commissioner has committed an error in fastening the liability
on the Insurance Company instead of the owner who violated
the terms and conditions of the policy.
12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company with
regard to seeking enhancement of compensation would
vehemently contend that the very pleading of the claimants
before the Commissioner that the deceased was drawing salary
of Rs.6,000/- per month and the same was considered hence, no
grounds are made out to enhance the compensation. The
counsel also vehemently contends that the claiming of batta of
Rs.100/- per day cannot be entertained since the same is not a
part of his earning.
13. The learned counsel in support of his argument relied
upon the judgment of this Court passed in MFA Nos.9192/2018
and other connected appeals. The counsel would vehemently
contend that in this judgment, this Court discussed in detail
regarding Section 147 of M.V. Act and also considered Rule 100
of 1989 wherein provisions are made to carry the persons in a
light transport goods vehicle and also in the light transport
goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs
and also any goods vehicle not more than seven provided that
the provisions of sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of the above proviso
shall not be applicable to the vehicles plying on interstate routes
or the vehicles carrying goods from one city to another city and
also this Court discussed the principles laid down in the case of
Smt. Bellamma and allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay
the compensation and exonerated the liability of the Insurance
Company. The said judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of
the case on hand also and prayed this Court to set aside the
judgment and award of the Commissioner.
14. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the following points
would arise for consideration of this Court that:
(1) Whether the Commissioner committed an error in not
awarding just and reasonable compensation?
(2) Whether the Commissioner committed an error in
awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a?
(3) Whether the Commissioner committed an error in
holding that there is a employer and employee
relationship between the insurer and the deceased?
(4) Whether the Commissioner committed an error in
fastening the liability on the Insurance Company?
(5) What order?
15. All the points in these appeals are interrelated with
regard to the relationship between the employer and employee
and quantum of compensation and also the liability hence, they
are taken up together for consideration.
16. Before answering the said points for consideration,
this Court has to mention in brief the factual aspects. It is not in
dispute that the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle sitting
on loaded cotton bales and he fell down from the lorry when the
driver of the lorry drove the same towards the road side ditch
and he had sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
17. The main contention of the counsel for the Insurance
Company is that he was not an employee of respondent No.1
and he has not established the relationship of employer and
employee. In order to consider the contention that there was no
relationship of employer and employee, the Court has take note
of the material available on record. Respondent No.1 appeared
and filed his written statement and in paragraph 1 of the written
statement he categorically admitted that the deceased
Onkarappa was working as an employee and he was under the
employment of respondent No.1 and he was discharging his
legitimate duties under employer and employee relationship
hence, it is clear that respondent No.1 has categorically admitted
that the deceased was an employee under him and also he
admits that he used to pay the amount of Rs.8,000/- as a salary
including batta and same has not been rebutted. In the cross-
examination of PW1 it is suggested that the deceased was not an
employee and the same was denied. But no doubt, in Ex.P1 it is
mentioned that he was working in APMC Yard as a coolie and no
document is produced to show that he was working under
respondent No.1 and PW1 though admits that the deceased was
proceedings as a passenger, PW1 was not present at the time of
the accident. In order to prove the case of the claimants, they
have examined one witness as PW2 who is also a co-worker of
the deceased. PW2 categorically says that all of them were
proceeding in the said lorry after loading the cotton bales from
Jagaluru to Chitradurga and accident was occurred due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who drove the
same towards road side ditch as a result, the deceased fell down
from the lorry. In his cross-examination, he also admits that he
was working in the market but he categorically says that he is
not working in any shop of the market, but he used to go to
work in the lorry and on that date, he was proceeding along with
the deceased and other coolies and also he admits that they
were carrying 175 cotton bales in the said lorry and all of them
sitting on the cotton bales and a suggestion was made that all of
them were traveling as passengers and the same was denied. It
is suggested that either the deceased or himself not worked
under respondent No.1 and the same was denied.
18. On the other hand, the Insurance Company also
examined the Legal Officer as RW1 who contends that as per the
police records they were traveling from Jagaluru in the aforesaid
vehicle and they are the paid passengers and not a Hamalies of
loader and un-loader but in the cross-examination, he admits
that policy was in force and he claims that the deceased was an
unauthorised passenger and also admits that he has not
produced any document to shows that the deceased was an
unauthorized passenger. RW1 also produced the document at
Ex.P1 i.e., the copy of the policy. In order to prove the fact that
the deceased was a paid passenger, no material is placed before
the Court as admitted by him and in order to comes to the
conclusion that he was not an employee of respondent No.1 also
no material is placed. But respondent No.1 categorically
admitted that the deceased was working as a coolie under him
and he was paying the salary with batta of Rs.8,000/- per
month. Apart from that in the complaint which is marked as
Ex.P2 is clear that on the date of the accident, all of them were
proceeding in the goods lorry by loading the cotton bales to
transport the same from Jagaluru to Chitradurga and this
complaint was given on the date of the accident i.e., on
25.01.2012 at 9.45 p.m. and the accident took place at 6.00
p.m.
19. It is also clear from the document that the deceased
was working in RMC as a loader and un-loader but the
contention of the Insurance Company that he was working at
RMC but it is not under the meaning that he was working in any
RMC shops and on the date of the accident, he loaded the cotton
bales and proceeded in the lorry hence, the very contention that
no relationship is established cannot be accepted since no cogent
evidence is placed before the Court to show that the deceased
was not an employee of respondent No.1 and even Insurance
Company is not summoned respondent No.1 to prove the fact
that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No.1
Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel
for Insurance Company that there is no relationship of employer
and employee.
20. The other contention of the counsel for the Insurance
Company that the deceased was a paid passenger and in order
to prove the said fact, no material is placed and document at
Ex.P1 is very clear that they have loaded the cotton bales and
proceeded in the goods lorry and respondent No.1 also admitted
that he was an employee under him and apart from RW1 also in
the cross-examination categorically admitted that he has not
produced any document to show that he was a paid passenger
and apart from that Insurance Company took the contention that
as per the police records, the deceased was a passenger and
same is also averred in the affidavit of RW1. On perusal of
police records it discloses that nowhere it is stated that he was a
passenger hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
21. The other point for consideration is with regard to
quantum of compensation. It is the claim of the claimants that
the deceased was working as a loader and un-loader and
respondent No.1 used to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as
coolie and batta of Rs.100/- per day and the written statement
filed by respondent No.1 is also clear that including the batta he
was paying the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the
deceased. The Commissioner considered the income of
Rs.6,000/-. The counsel for the Insurance Company also
brought to notice of this Court that their pleading itself is that
the deceased was getting Rs.6,000/- per month and batta
cannot be added and the same is only a daily expenses. The
Commissioner in the judgment while answering Issue No.2
comes to the conclusion that admittedly there is no documents
to show that earning of the deceased as pleaded that he was
earning Rs.8,000/- per month and considering the cost of living,
notional income of Rs.6,000/- was taken. But when the claim is
made under the ECA Act, the Commissioner ought to have taken
the statutory income. The accident is of the year 2012 and the
statutory income for the said period is Rs.8,000/-. Hence, the
Commissioner ought to have taken statutory income of
Rs.8,000/- instead of notional income of Rs.6,000/-. Hence, the
very contention of the claimants that the Commissioner has
committed an error in taking the income, there is a force.
Hence, this Court has to revisit with regard to the calculation of
income is concerned.
22. The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time
of the accident and in a case of death, as per schedule-I, Section
2(1) and 4 of W.C. Act, 50% of salary has to be taken into
consideration to assess the compensation. In terms of
Schedule-IV, Section 4 of W.C.Act, the factors to be worked out
and for the age of 28 years, the factors would be 211.79 hence,
it comes to Rs.8,47,160/- (8,000 x 50 x 211.79 fraction/100).
23. The other contention of the counsel for the claimants
that the Commissioner has awarded the interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the 30th day of the accident till the realization is
erroneous. There is a force in the contention of the counsel for
the claimants that the Commissioner has committed an error in
awarding the interest at 9% instead of statutory interest at the
rate of 12% p.a., payable from the 30th day of the accident and
the Commissioner has not committed an error having awarded
the interest from 30th day of the accident but committed an error
in awarding interest at 9% p.a. and the same has to be
enhanced to 12% p.a.
24. Now, the question is with regard to the liability is
concerned. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of
policy and policy is in force is also not in dispute and the vehicle
involved in the accident is a lorry and same is a goods vehicle.
The counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contend
that Rule 100 of 1989 is applicable and the employee cannot be
carried on the carriage and also further contended that Rule 100
of 1989 stipulates carriage of persons in a goods vehicle is
prohibited that no persons shall be carried in a goods vehicle.
The counsel also brought to notice of this Court sub-section (ii)
and (iii) wherein any other light transport goods vehicle not
more than three and in any goods vehicle not more than seven.
But in the case on hand, no doubt, the vehicle involved in the
accident is a goods vehicle and not the light transport goods
vehicle. Proviso is also that provisions of sub-clause (ii) and (iii)
of the above proviso shall not be applicable to the vehicles plying
on the interstate routes or the vehicles carrying goods from one
city to another city.
25. In the case on hand, no doubt, the cotton bales
loaded at Jagaluru and transported the same to the Chitradurga.
The counsel for the claimants also relied upon the judgment of
this Court in MFA No.10463/2011 and MFA Crob.No.24/2012 and
in that case, the deceased was a labourer traveling along with
other workers in a tractor-trailer and similar grounds are also
urged in the said case also and this Court also considered the
Rule 100of 1989 and also considered Section 147 of M.V.Act.
Having read the provisions of Rule 2(b), (c) and (h) of Central
Motor Vehicle Rules (for short 'CMV Rules') and also Rule 100 of
1989, in paragraph 9 discussed that a conjoint reading of Rule
2(b), (c), (h) of CMV Rules discussed with regard to the said
Rule does not restrict to only transport goods vehicle and it is
applicable even in cases falling under non-transport goods
vehicle also and also considered Section 147 of M.V.Act and
extracted the same in paragraph 10 and also considered sub-
section (4) of Section 149 of M.V.Act and comes to the
conclusion insurer cannot include any liability by adding any
term in the policy format which is specified by the statute. The
insurer is liable to compulsorily cover all the risk arising out of
and any motor vehicle and the liability of the insurer is co-
extensive with that of the insured. It is clear that coolies who
are carried in a goods vehicle are compulsorily covered under
Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V.Act. No doubt, this Court passed
the said judgment in the year 2016 and other judgment of this
Court is of the year 2022 and in the recent judgment regarding
liability is concerned taken note of Rule 100 of 1989 as well as
Section 147 of M.V. Act. But observed in paragraph 17 that Rule
100 of 1989 is not applicable in the present facts and
circumstances and the claimants and the owner cannot take
benefit of this provision but observed that no extra-premium is
paid in respect of coolie. In paragraph 18 taken note of
registration of the offending vehicle, the seating capacity is 1 +
1, as per the provision at the most the risk of one person who is
traveling in the offending vehicle in the cabin are covered.
26. In the case on hand also admittedly, the vehicle
involved in the accident is a goods vehicle that is lorry and
hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compulsorily to
the employees as per Section 147 of M.V. Act and hence, in view
of the statutory liability, the very contention of the Insurance
Company that company is not liable to pay compensation on the
ground that Rule 100 of 1989 is applicable cannot be accepted.
The other contention that the deceased was traveling on the
carriage and hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation is cannot be accepted and it is the liability of the
Insurance Company statutorily and compulsorily to pay the
compensation as per Section 147 of M.V. Act since the deceased
was proceedings as a coolie in the goods vehicle and accident
was occurred during the course of his employment. Hence, the
contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
Hence, I answer all the points accordingly.
27. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal of the claimants in MFA No.4205/2017 is
allowed. The judgment and award dated 01.09.2016
passed in E.C.A.No.19/2015 of the Commissioner is
modified by granting the compensation of
Rs.8,47,160/- with interest 12% p.a from 30th day of
the accident.
(ii) The appeal of the Insurance Company in MFA
No.7502/2016 is dismissed.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six weeks
from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to
the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(v) With regard to the apportionment, the order of the
Commissioner remains undisturbed.
(vi) The amount in deposit made by the
appellant/Insurance Company is ordered to be
transmitted to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and Commissioner for Compensation at Chitradurga
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
