Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ishwarappa S/O Mahagundappa Niralagi on 22 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
MFA No. 22627 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22627 OF 2011 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD,
REP: BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,ANKOLA ARCADE,
DHARWAD,REP: BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Digitally
signed by
...APPELLANT
SAMREEN
SAMREEN
AYUB (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23
16:28:21
AND:
+0530
1. SRI. ISHWARAPPA S/O MAHAGUNDAPPA NIRALAGI
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O MADALAGERI, TQ:
RON, DIST: GADAG,
2. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O DEVAPPA KOLIYAVAR
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKIKOPPA,
TQ: NARAGUND,DIST: GADAG, (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
NO. KA-26/T-3014/3015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHGOUDA L LINGANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMENS
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD:10.03.2011 PASSED IN WCA:F NO:24/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE LABOUR OFFICER CUM COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS
COMPENSATION GADAG DISTRICT GADAG, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,54,160/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
MFA No. 22627 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Santoshgouda L Lingangoudar, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant.
2. Respondent No.2 - owner though served with
notice of the appeal, remained unrepresented.
3. Appeal is by the Insurance Company
challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in
WCA.F.No.24/2007 on the file of Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation Act, Gadag (for short, 'CWC').
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
Sri.Ishwarappa being the husband and dependant of
Smt.Shankravva laid a claim under the provisions of
Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of
accidental death of Shankravva.
5. Claim petition averments further reveal that
Shankravva was working as a coolie under respondent
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
No.1 involving a tractor and trailer unit bearing No.KA-
26/T-3014 and 3015 on the unfortunate day namely
08.02.2003 at about 3.00 p.m. when the tractor and
trailer unit was attached to a grain pealing machine and
when said work was under progress, the saree worn by
Shankravva accidentally got into contact with the pully of
the engine of tractor and she died an accidental death.
6. Claimant being the husband laid a claim for
awarding suitable compensation.
7. Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement. While respondent No.1 - owner of
tractor and trailer unit admitted the incident including
employer and employee relationship, Insurance Company
denied its liability.
8. Evidence was recorded by the learned CWC
after raising necessary issues and based on the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, learned CWC
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
allowed the claim petition partly in a sum of Rs.2,54,160/-
and saddled liability on the Insurance Company.
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment,
Insurance Company is in appeal.
10. Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, vehemently contended that the insurance
policy did not cover the risk of a victim of accident when
the tractor is attached to any other agricultural implement
or equipment. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable
to pay the adjudged compensation as there is breach of
policy condition.
11. In support of his argument, he placed on
record, the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Gadhilingappa and Others vs. K.Guleppa and
Others in MFA Crob.No.100001/2016 and connected
mattes decided on 20.04.2021, wherein it is held as
under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
"34. The question Nos (ii) and (iii) relate to the
persons who are working either on the ploughing or
crushing machines or any other
instrument/equipment attached to a tractor. The
question is whether they can be construed as
employees so as to cover their risk statutorily under
Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Considering the
definition of 'trailer' which we have already quoted
above, a ploughing or a crushing machine attached
to a tractor is not a trailer. The definition of 'semi-
trailer' contained under sub-section (39) of Section
2 makes it very clear that a 'semi-trailer' is not a
trailer. A semi-trailer means a vehicle not
mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which
is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and
which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-
imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne
by, that motor vehicle. Therefore, every instrument
including ploughing or crushing machine attached
to a tractor will not necessarily be a trailer. At
highest, it can be a semi-trailer. Even assuming
that the said two categories of equipments are
semi-trailers, the same are not the motor vehicle
covered by sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the
M.V. Act. Since a semi-trailer is not a motor
vehicle, the provisions of Section 147 of the M.V.
Act will not apply to it. Chapter-XI deals with the
insurance of motor vehicles and, therefore, even
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
the provision of Section 147 of the M.V. Act deals
with insurance of motor vehicles. Even assuming
that it is an attachment to the tractor, it is not
required to be covered by a statutory policy of
insurance as such attachments are not motor
vehicles. In view of sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause
(i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of
the M.V. Act, the liability of employees working on
such instruments like ploughing or crushing
machine attached to a tractor is not required to be
covered by a policy of insurance in respect of a
tractor issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section
147 of the M.V. Act.
12. Per contra, Sri.Santoshgouda L Lingangoudar,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant supports
the impugned judgment.
13. This Court bestowed its attention to the
material on record meticulously in the light of the
arguments put forth by the parties; especially the
principles of law enunciated in paragraph No.34 of
Gadhilingappa's case supra.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
14. Admittedly, as on the date of accident, even as
per the claim petition averments, there was an attachment
to the tractor for separating grains from maize.
15. PW.2, namely, Sumitra is an eyewitness to the
incident. She has stated that the deceased Shankravva
was removing the wastage part from maize after the
grains were separated with the help of machine attached
to the tractor. When she was so doing the work,
accidentally her saree and hairs got into contact with the
pulley of tractor engine and she sustained grievous injuries
and died.
16. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of
Insurance Company that Insurance Company is not liable
to pay compensation to the accidental death of
Shankravva cannot be countenanced in law as it is not an
attachment that has been involved in the accidental death
of Shankravva, but it is the pulley of engine of tractor that
has been responsible for the accidental death of
Shankravva.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4330
17. Accordingly, the principles of law enunciated in
Gadhilingappa's case supra are not applicable to the
case on hand on the factual aspects.
18. No other points are urged on behalf of
Insurance Company to avoid the liability.
19. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for
disbursement in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
