Karnataka High Court
Jyoti And Ors vs Valuboju Srinivas And Ors on 30 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
MFA No. 200563 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200563 OF 2020 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. JYOTI W/O LATE TIPPANNA,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. VISHAL S/O LATE TIPPANNA
AGE: 04 YEARS,
MINOR U/G HIS
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 JYATAMMA.
3. MAHADEVI W/O BABURAO
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
ALL ARE R/O: VILLAGE FATMAPUR,
by RENUKA TQ: HUMNABAD,
Location: HIGH DIST: BIDAR,
COURT OF NOW AT NIDWANCHA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
TQ: & DIST: BIDAR-584102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VALUBOJU SRINIVAS
S/O JAGANNATH CHORI,
AGE: MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
MFA No. 200563 of 2020
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O: SBH COLONY, ALIPUR,
TQ: ZAHIRABAD,
DIST: SANGAREDDY,
DIST: MEDAK TS.-502220.
2. MR. SAKARI DHIRAVATH
S/O RAMKOTI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO. 2-56,
KALYANPALLE MIRIYAL HUDA,
NALGONDA,
DIST: NALGONDA T.S.-508001.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO. 202/B, 2ND FLOOR
MANANDA TOWERS
AT 7-1-59/2 AND 59/6 AMEERPETH,
HYDERABAD T.S.-500016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED-31.08.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BIDAR IN ECA NO.19/2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
MFA No. 200563 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
order passed in a claim proceedings initiated under the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 insofar as it relates to
exonerating the insurer from liability and making the
owner of the tractor liable.
2. It is the case of the claimants that an accident
occurred when the deceased was on the road and trying to
remove the airlock to ensure the supply of diesel to the
engine, when the tractor had stalled and was on the road.
It was the case of the claimants that while he was in the
process of removing the airlock, the driver of the tractor
started the vehicle and the vehicle suddenly jumped and
as a result, the deceased was thrown on the road and the
wheel of the tractor ran over him.
3. It is therefore clear from the averments in the claim
petition itself that the accident occurred when the
deceased was on the road and the same was essentially an
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle i.e.,
the tractor. In such an event, the question of the Insurer
contending that the deceased was not traveling in the
tractor and he was also not permitted to travel in the
tractor and therefore, they were to be exonerated from
the liability, cannot be accepted.
4. The other argument advanced by the insurer that the
charge-sheet indicated that the driver of the tractor did
not possess a driving licence and therefore, the insurance
company could not be liable, cannot also be accepted
since, in such an event, it would be the insurer to satisfy
the compensation first and thereafter, proceed to initiate
recovery proceedings against the owner of the offending
vehicle, who permitted the vehicle to be driven by a
person who was not authorised to drive the vehicle.
5. In fact, according to the decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in MFA No.202001 of 2016, placing
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gurmail Singh @ Gurmer @ Gurnal Singh vs. Bajaj
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and
another, in Civil Appeal No(s).12065 of 2018
disposed of on 13.12.2018, has also taken the view
that the insurance company should pay and then proceed
to recover.
6. The reliance placed on the Division Bench ruling in
MFA No.6154 of 2019 cannot also be of any assistance
since another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA
No.200759 of 2021 has stated that the said judgment of
the Division Bench would have no application in light of
the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Pappu Deo
Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and others, reported in AIR
2020 SC 4424 and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14
SCC 663.
7. In the result, the appeal will have to be allowed
insofar as it relates to exoneration of liability of the insurer
and it will have to be ordered that the insurer would be
liable to satisfy the compensation and thereafter proceed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5456
to recover the same from the owner of the offending
vehicle.
8. The impugned judgment of the Trial Court is
modified accordingly.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent.
10. Sri.Sudarshan M., learned counsel, is permitted to
file vakalat for respondent No.3 within a period of two
weeks.
11. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the disposal of the appeal.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
