Karnataka High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri. Nanappa Kariyappa Madar on 3 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
MFA No. 22867 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22867 OF 2011 (WC)
BETWEEN:
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
IFFCO TOKIO GENRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE,
"SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR 3RD MAIN,
141, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR,
BANGALURU-560084,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. NANAPPA KARIYAPPA MADAR,
AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. AMARGOL, TQ. NAVALGUND,
DIST. DHARWAD,
NOW RESIDING AT KULAGERI CROSS,
TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
Digitally
signed by 2. SHRI. BALAPPA RACHAPPA WALIKAR,
BHARATHI H
BHARATHI M AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
HM Date: R/O: AMARGOL, TQ. NAVALGUND,
2024.01.11
11:40:48 DIST. DHARWAD.
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
30(1)(a)(aa) OF WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT 1923, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATE 27.12.2010 PASSED IN WC NF
NO:275/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER CUM
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, BAGALKOT
DISTRICT BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,16,027/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
MFA No. 22867 of 2011
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Girish S Hiremath, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
2. The present appeal is against the judgment and
award passed by the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner in WC.NF-275/2007 dated 27.12.2010.
3. A claim petition came to be filed by the
claimant Sri.Nanappa Kariyappa Madar claiming that he
was travelling in goods vehicle bearing No.KA-25/B-5871
from Amaragol to Kerur. At that juncture, the vehicle met
with an accident and therefore he laid a claim.
4. Claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
Company stating that in the entire claim petition there is
no mention that the claimant was travelling as a coolie and
he was only travelling in the vehicle as a passenger as is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
found from the complaint at Ex.P.2 and therefore sought
for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal raised necessary issues based on
the rival contentions of the parties.
6. In order to prove the case of the claimant,
claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and doctor who
treated him namely Mohanbabu Tukade as PW.2 and
placed on record twelve documents which are exhibited
and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.12 comprising of FIR,
complaint, statement of the claimant, panchanama, IMV
report, wound certificate, charge sheet, discharge
summary, disability certificate and X-ray. Ex.P.11 is the
driving licence and Ex.P.12 is the policy.
7. As against the said evidence, on behalf of
Insurance Company, Sri.Ravi Policegoudar has been
examined as RW.1 and policy has been marked as Ex.R.1.
8. The Workmen's Commissioner, on assessing the
oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
claim petition by granting a sum of Rs.1,16,027/- as
compensation.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company is in appeal.
10. Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company reiterating the grounds urged in the
appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the
evidence placed on record on behalf of the claimant would
not establish the fact that the claimant was travelling as a
coolie and therefore question of invoking the provisions of
Workmen's Compensation Act did not arise. As such, the
claim petition was not at all maintainable. Therefore, the
appeal needs to be allowed.
11. He also pointed out that the driver of the
offending auto-rickshaw did not possess proper licence to
drive the auto-rickshaw.
12. He further pointed out that in the complaint
itself, the claimant has not mentioned that he was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
travelling as a coolie and as an afterthought, further
statement was recorded before the police wherein he has
stated that he was travelling as a coolie and therefore the
appeal needs to be allowed.
13. Per contra, Sri.Girish S Hiremath, learned
counsel representing the claimant supports the impugned
judgment.
14. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
Admittedly, the offending vehicle is a goods auto-rickshaw.
Applying Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, three
persons are permitted to travel in the goods vehicle.
Further statement said to have been given by the claimant
before police is marked as Ex.P.3, wherein he has
specifically stated that he was trvelling in the goods auto-
rickshaw at the relevant point of time as a coolie from
Amaragol to kerur.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
15. Taking note of all these aspects, invoking of
Workmen's Compensation Act by the claimant is just and
proper.
16. Even after re-appreciation of the material, this
Court does not find any serious infirmity in the impugned
judgment and award in view of the fact that the claimant
was travelling as a coolie in the auto-rickshaw at the
relevant point of time.
17. The next ground for which the appellant has
sought to annul the impugned judgment and award is
that, the driver of the auto-rickshaw was not having
proper endorsement in the licence to drive the goods
vehicle.
18. The said aspect is also no longer res integra in
view of the principles of law enunciated in the case of
Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:117
19. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the grounds urged in the appeal are hardly
sufficient to interfere with the impugned judgment and
award. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
(iii) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith
for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
