Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 541 (KAR)

K. Thirupathi Reddy v. Rajegowda

2007-08-27

JAWAD RAHIM, K.L.MANJUNATH

body2007
JUDGMENT Manjunath, J.—Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of parties we have heard the appeal on merits. 2. Appellant was R-2 in MVC 72/1993 before the MACT, Srirangapatna. R-1 & 2 were the claimants before the tribunal. They lodged claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of their son Mahesh who died on 7.8.1992 at about 11 p.m. when he was working in a lorry under the appellant herein. According to the claimants, Maheah was getting a salary of Rs.1800/- per month. In addition to that every day he was getting a sum of Rs.20/- as daily batta. Deceased was the only earning member of the family. Insurance company contended that though policy is issued it does not cover the risk of a loader or third party as the policy was issued in respect of a machine and which also is known as contractors plant and machinery insurance policy. Therefore, insurance company requested the tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. Before the tribunal, father of the deceased was examined as PW-1, one eye-witness was examined as PW-2. Tribunal, after considering the terms and conditions of the policy which was produced as Annexure-R1 held that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the machinery since the same has not covered the risk of the accident. After assessing the income of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. fixing the liability on the owner of the machinery. This judgment and award is called in question in this appeal. 3. According to the counsel for the appellant, even though machinery in question was insured with the insurance company, tribunal without application of mind did not saddled the liability on the insurance company. According to him, though the policy is termed as contractor—s plant and machinery, insurance company in view of the premium paid by the appellant, it covers the risk of the accident caused on account of the use of machinery. Therefore, he requests the Court to reverse the findings of the tribunal in regard to the liability and direct the insurance company to pay compensation awarded in the case. Per contra, counsel for the insurance company contends that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, insurance company has agreed to indemnify the machinery alone and not the accident caused by it. Per contra, counsel for the insurance company contends that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, insurance company has agreed to indemnify the machinery alone and not the accident caused by it. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the insurance policy issued by the insurance company covers the risk of the accident caused by the use of the machinery in question. 5. We have perused the insurance policy which is marked as Ex.R-1. The policy is termed as contractors plant and machinery insurance policy. Machinery in question is a earth-mover. It has not been registered under the provisions of the M.V. Act. From looking into the schedule of the policy, it is clear to us that only machinery is covered and not any other type of risk. According to the counsel for the appellant, as the appellant being the owner of the machinery was required to move the same from one place to another for the purpose of carrying on his constructional activities in the process, if the vehicle has met with an accident, it is the duty of the insurance company to indemnify the owner. We have perused the India Motor Tariff Regulations. There is a provision to cover the risk of the accident if the same is caused by the machinery issued under non-motor policy, provided liability of third party is covered and premium is paid on such policies. It covers the risk or damage caused to the plant and machinery and not to the risk of third party. When the claimant has not paid extra premium and has purchased non-motor policy covering the risk of a third party, we cannot hold that the tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability on the appellant herein. In the circumstances, we do not see any reasons to interfere with the findings of the tribunal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Amount if any in deposit is ordered to be sent to the tribunal. 7. Appeal dismissed.