Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Razia Begaum W/O Bashasab @ Sandur ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
MFA No. 20878 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20878 OF 2012 (WC)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
OPPOSITE RADIKA TALKIES,
RAGHAVACHARI ROAD BELLARY,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAZIA BEGAUM
W/O. BASHASAB @ SANDUR BASHASAB,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: BUKKASAGAR VILLAGE, TALUK: HOSPET,
DISTRICT: BELLARY.
Digitally signed 2. SRI. R.HANUMANTH RAYUDU @ HANUMATHRAI,
by SAROJA
SAROJA
HANGARAKI S/O. R.VENKATSWAMI,
Date:
HANGARAKI 2024.01.06
11:12:04 R/O: BUKKASAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: HOSPET,
+0530
DISTRICT: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE W.C. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 20.06.2011, PASSED IN WCA:F:473/2003 ON THE
FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-2, BELLARY, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,04,992/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
MFA No. 20878 of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. Nagangouda R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for
the appellant.
2. Present appeal is directed against the validity of the
judgment and award passed by the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner in WCA No.473/2003/F dated 20.06.2011.
3. Facts in brief for the disposal of the present appeal
are as under:
3.1. Smt. Razia Begaum W/o. Bashasab @ Sandur
Bashasab has filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'W.C.Act')
contending that her husband Bashasab was the driver in a
tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA-35/TA-99 and KA-
35/T-649 belonging to first respondent - R. Hanumanth
Rayudu.
4. The monthly salary was fixed in a sum of Rs.4000/-
and batta charges of Rs.50/- per day. On 14.08.2003 at about
11.00 p.m., when Bashasab was carrying out the work in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
agricultural land belonging to the first respondent in
Bookkasagar form, the tractor trailer and the driver fell down
and lost his life. Therefore, she laid the claim for
compensation.
5. Upon the issuance of the notice, first
respondent/owner appeared before the Court and filed written
statement admitting the contents of the claim petition and also
admitting the fact that the deceased was a driver in his tractor
trailer and he has a valid driving license.
6. However, Insurance Company denied the claim
petition averments and stated that the deceased has no valid
driving license. After framing necessary issues, the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner recorded the evidence of the
parties. In order to prove the case of the claimant, the
claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and relied on
documentary evidence namely the police records with regard to
accident and other documents which were marked at Ex.P.1 to
P.5.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
7. As against the evidence placed on record the
Insurance Company got examined RW.1 and relied on policy
marked at Ex.R.1.
8. The learned Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner on considering the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record believed the version of the claimant
that the deceased was carrying on the work as a driver with the
first respondent's tractor trailer and was carrying the driving
license along with him and on account of accident wherein he
drown in the silt and the driving license was not able to be
traced and allowed the claim petition by granting sum of
Rs.3,04,992/- with interest at the rate of 12%.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company has preferred the present appeal on the following
grounds.
1) The Commissioner for Workmen's
compensation acted perversely in granting
compensation in favour of the 1st respondent on
account of the death of deceased driver ignoring the
fact that the deceased had not possessed the valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident. The
basic requirement for a driver is the driving license and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
the claimants did not produce any document to prove
that the deceased was dully licensed. Hence the order
passed by the commissioner is illegal and is liable to be
set aside.
2) The Commissioner failed to consider that the
present claim is for the death of a driver and the basic
requirement for maintaining the claim for the death of
a driver, is the Driving License. Unless it is proved that
the deceased had a driving license and the death of the
driver was during course of out of employment, the
legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled
to compensation. The Commissioner without
considering this aspect of the matter proceeded to hold
that the claimants are entitled to the compensation.
3) The Commissioner for Workmen's
compensation failed to consider that the insurance
policy specifically mandates that a person driving the
insured vehicle shall hold an effective driving license at
the time of accident and therefore the 2nd
respondent/insured has committed breach of terms and
conditions of the policy by entrusting his vehicle to the
person who had no driving license. The non-
consideration of these aspects of the matter by the
Commissioner has resulted in passing the impugned
order and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
4) The Commissioner ought to have rejected the
claim on the sole ground that, even after the remand
by this Hon'ble court the neither the 1 respondent nor
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
the 2nd respondent/insured produced the driving
license particulars of the deceased in order to prove
that the deceased died while driving the insured
vehicle. Hence the order of the commissioner requires
to be set aside.
5) Certified copy of the award dated 20-06-2011
made in WCA:F:No 473/2003 on the file of the
Workmen's' Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division
-II, Bellary, is herewith produced.
10. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Shri. N. R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently contended that the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner was wrong in allowing the claim
petition especially when there is no proof that the deceased has
a valid driving license and as such, the liability passed on to the
Insurance Company has resulted in miscarriage of justice and
sought for allowing the appeal.
11. Respondents have been served with notice of
appeal. But they have remained absent before the Court.
12. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of
the appellant, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
13. On such perusal of the material on record including
the Trial Court records, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the claimant was successful enough to establish that the
deceased was working as a driver in the tractor trailer bearing
registration No.KA-35/TA-99 and KA-35/T-649 belonging to the
first respondent, on 14.08.2003, there was an accident
whereby the tractor trailer and the deceased fell down and
drown himself in the sludge. According to the claimant, the
deceased was carrying driving license everyday along with him
and the same is lost in sludge. Therefore the driving license
could not be placed before the Court and she being illiterate,
could not trace the driving license number and sought for
compensation.
14. First respondent who is the owner of the tractor
trailer, filed written statement specifically admitting the
contentions and also stated that the deceased had a valid
driving license and he has appointed deceased as driver after
verifying his driving license. Police records do not make out a
case that the deceased was not having a driving license.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
15. The material evidence placed on record and
statement made on oath by the claimant establish the case of
claimant. Whereas, the respondent-Insurance Company has
relied on oral testimony of its officer. No other efforts are made
to substantiate on the fact that the deceased did not have a
valid driving license. The owner was not even summoned
before the Court and cross examined as to the contents of his
written statement contentions by the Insurance Company.
16. Under such circumstances, the learned Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner has believed the version of the
claimant having regard to the nature of the accident and
allowed the claim petition.
17. After re-appreciation of the material on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the
learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is a plausible
and possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case as
regards to the nature of accident.
18. Under such circumstances no useful purpose would
be served by admitting the appeal for further consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13
19. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
Admission declined. Appeal is
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Amount in deposit was ordered to be
transfer to the learned Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
