Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Shantavva W/O Narayanappa Tahasildar on 5 April, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223
                                                       MFA No. 20228 of 2013
                                             C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20228 OF 2013 (ECA)
                                              C/W
                                MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100007 OF 2023

                   IN MFA NO.20228/2013

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
                   DIVISIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX,
                   KESHVAPUR, HUBLI.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. SHANTAVVA
                         W/O. NARAYANAPPA TAHASILDAR,
                         AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                         R/O. GIRISINKOPPA, TALUK: HANAGAL,
                         DISTRICT: HAVERI.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R    2.    NARAYANAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA TAHASILDAR,
Location: HIGH           AGE: ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
COURT OF                 R/O. GIRISINKOPPA, TALUK: HANAGAL,
KARNATAKA                DISTRICT: HAVERI.

                   3.    SHRI. SHAMBHANNA S/O. RUDRAPPA GAJIPUR,
                         AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O.ARALESHWAR, TALUK: HANAGAL,
                         DISTRICT: HAVERI.

                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. P. G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
                       L. S. HOTTIN, AND C. B. SHAKUNAVALLI, AND
                       U. G. KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR R3)
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223
                                    MFA No. 20228 of 2013
                          C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023



      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30 OF THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
02.02.2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, HAVERI, IN W.C. NO.223/2011 AND TO ETC.

IN MFA CROB NO.100007/2023

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. NARAYANAPPA TAHASILDAR,
     AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. GIRISINAKOPPA, TQ: HANAGAL,
     DISTRICT: HAVERI-581104.

2.   NARAYANAPPA KARIYAPPA TAHASILDAR,
     AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. GIRISINAKOPPA, TQ: HANAGAL,
     DISTRICT: HAVERI-581104.
                                           ...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. P. G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SHAMBANNA S/O. RUDRAPPA GAJIPUR,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
     R/O. ARALESHWAR, TQ: HANAGAL,
     DIST: HAVERI-581104.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
     DIVISION OFFICE, N. K. COMPLEX,
     KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-560010.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.20228/2013 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 02.02.2011 PASSED IN WCA NO. 223/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION HAVERI, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL AND CROB, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      -3-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223
                                          MFA No. 20228 of 2013
                                C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023




                                JUDGMENT

MFA.No.20228/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company

and MFA.CROB.No.100007/2023 is filed by the claimants,

being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

02.02.2011 passed in WCA.No.223/2009 by the learned

Labour Officer & Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, Haveri (for short, 'Commissioner').

2. Heard Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel appearing

for the Insurance Company and Sri.P.G.Chikkanaragund,

learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company submits that the Commissioner has committed

error in directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay

the compensation as there is no employer and employee

relationship between the deceased and the respondent No.3.

It is further submitted that the policy is very clear that the

risk of a coolie is not covered under it as the owner of the

tractor-trailer has not paid additional premium. It is further

submitted that the tractor-trailer was used for the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023

commercial purpose and at the time of loading the Nilgiri

logs, the accident took place and one

Bheemanagouda/employee succumbed to the injuries. It is

further submitted that the Commissioner has assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month which is on

higher side. He seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the

impugned judgment and award of the Commissioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

cross-objectors/claimants support the impugned judgment

and award of the Tribunal and submits that the respondent

No.3/employer himself has entered appearance before the

Commissioner and clearly stated that he had engaged the

services of the deceased Bheemanagouda as a workman and

he has also admitted that he used to pay him Rs.200/- per

day as wages and Rs.50/- per day as Bhatta, such statement

of respondent No.3/employer clearly establishes that there

was an employer and employee relationship between them.

It is further submitted that the issue of non-coverage of

coolie in accident cases is no more res-integra and the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of NATIONAL

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. MARUTHI AND

OTHERS1 has held that the coolie working under the

employer in tractor-trailer is entitled for compensation. It is

submitted that the evidence of respondent No.3 is very clear

that the deceased used to earn wages of Rs.200 per day and

Rs.50/- per day as Bhatta, hence, he seeks to reassess the

compensation by assessing the wages on higher side.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and

the learned counsel appearing for the cross-

objectors/claimants. Perused the material available on

record.

6. It is not in dispute that one Sri.Bheemanagouda

met with an accident on 01.02.2008 during the course of the

employment and succumbed to the injuries. The material

available on record clearly indicates that the deceased

Bheemanagouda was working as a coolie under the

respondent No.3/owner of the tractor-trailor. The evidence

ILR 2011 KAR 4139

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023

available on record further indicates that at the time of

loading Nilgiri logs in the agricultural field, the deceased met

with an accident and died. The activity involved in the

accident are being the agricultural activities and there is no

contrary evidence available on record to indicate that the

vehicle was used for the commercial purpose, hence,

contrary contention urged by the Insurance Company has no

merit for consideration.

7. Insofar as the contention that the coolie is not

covered under the insurance policy is no more res integra.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra) at para 31 held as

under:

"31. By reading Sections 147 and 149, it is clear that the Legislative intent was that the insurer has to compulsorily cover all the risks arising out of and use of motor vehicle and the liability of the insurer is co- extensive with that of insured. However, this is subject to the limitations envisaged under Section 147(1)(b). It is also clear that the coolies who are employees carried in a goods vehicle are to be compulsorily covered under Section 147(1)(b)."

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6223

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2023

8. In view of the enunciation of law referred supra,

this Court holds that the Insurance Company is liable to pay

the awarded compensation.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the cross-objectors/claimants have orally

deposed that the deceased used to earn wages of Rs.200/-

per day and Rs.50/- per day as Bhatta, however, no cogent

and acceptable evidence is made available on record to

consider the same and that too there is enormous delay in

filing the cross-objection. Taking note of the delay and the