Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Laxman Umade vs Sri. Prakash Audumbar Honmute And Anr on 8 August, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5848
MFA No. 201159 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201159 OF 2017 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O LAXMAN UMADE
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. DOBLE GALLI, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PRAKASH AUDUMBAR HONMUTE
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF AUTO
BEARING NO.MH-13/G-3600,
Digitally signed R/O. A/P.9/2,(1/2) RAMWADI,
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR DIST. SOLAPUR-413007
Location: HIGH (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BALI VASE, SOLAPUR,
R/BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5848
MFA No. 201159 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-10.05.2017
PASSED IN ECA NO.407/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR. AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
BY RS.10,00,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT
BEFORE THE COURT BELOW AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. 1. This appeal is by the employee, challenging the
order passed by the Trial Court by which his claim for
grant of compensation has been rejected.
2. The appellant has made a claim under the provisions
of the Employees' Compensation Act, in which he stated as
follows:
"2. On 27/10/2010, at the time of
working on said vehicle, some unknown
-persons beat the auto driver
Basavaraj Umade and suddenly
Basavraj Umade fell on the down and
attacked by paralyses (Parsi, Lakhwa) to
be left side of the body he now he cannot
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5848
sit walk Move, and left hand and left leg
no Working and no power to that side of
the body, now he cannot drive the Auto.
Hence it s 100% disablement as per
Supreme court of India, met with an
accident at MIDC Solapur. Petitioner was
driving on the und Auto, due to the
petitioner attacked by paralyses (Parsi,
Lakhwa) to his left side of the body. Due
to this accident grievously injured at
during the course of and out of his
employment as Autodriver."
(emphasis supplied)
3. As could be seen from the said claim averments, it
was the case of the appellant that while he was working as
the driver in the Auto rikshaw, some unknown persons
beat him up, as a consequence of which he suffered a
stroke and could not work.
4. This claim in the claim petition, by itself, admits that
no accident occurred to the motor vehicle i.e., the auto
rikshaw. If no accident occurred to the auto rickshaw, the
question of the insurance company being liable for the
injuries suffered by the claimant would not arise.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5848
5. It is only if an accident had occurred as a result of
the use of the motor vehicle, which in turn resulted in an
injury caused to the driver, can a claim be made against
the insurer. The dismissal of the claim petition as against
the insurer is therefore justified.
6. The fact, however, remains that, according to the
claimant, he was working as a driver in the auto rikshaw
owned by respondent No.1, when the incident occurred. It
is therefore clear that he suffered injuries while
discharging his duty and therefore, he can lay a claim
against the owner but cannot make the insurer liable.
7. Since the liability of the owner for the injuries
suffered by the claimant--appellant in the course of his
employment has not been considered by the Trial Court,
the matter is remanded to the Trial Court only to re-
consider the question as to whether the employer would
be liable for the compensation, since it is contended that
the claimant suffered injuries during the course of his
employment.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5848
8. It is made clear that the insurer cannot be made
liable and need not be a participant in the proceedings
before the Trial Court.
9. The appeal is thus allowed in part.
10. The Registry is directed to transmit the trial court
record forthwith.
11. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
