Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 303 (KAR)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Renuka

2008-06-17

H.G.RAMESH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. G. Ramesh, J. This appeal by National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed against the judgment dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere in Case No.WCA:CWC:CR-73/2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,76,255/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - the widow, children and mother of the deceased-Shankaraiah Pyatimath who died due to injuries suffered by him in accident that occured on 21.03.2006 while he was being carried as a Coolie/Hamali in the tractor-trailer belonging to respondent No.5. 2. I have heard Sri B. C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment. I have also perused certified copy of the Motor Insurance Policy [Ex.R2(1)] relating to the tractor-trailer which was made available to the Court by the learned counsel. The following two substantial questions of law are formulated in the memorandum of appeal: i) Whether the Commissioner acted contrary to law in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation ignoring that no premium had been collected to cover the risk of coolies under the policy marked at Exh. R-2-1 and that the workmen are prohibited from travelling in the trailer attached to Tractor under Rule 100(6) read with Rule 226 of the KMV Rules? ii) Whether the Commissioner acted perversely in holding that the one employee shown in the policy is to cover the risk of hamals by ignoring that the employee contemplated in that vehicle is only the Driver in respect of whom there is coverage? 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that at the time of accident, the deceased-Shankaraiah Pyatimath was being carried as a Coolie in the tractor-trailer and by referring to the various road rules, submits that the deceased was not permitted to be so carried in the tractor-trailer and hence, such a risk was not required to be covered in law. It is unnecessary to examine the road rules referred to by the learned counsel as the appellant-Insurance Company has expressly covered the risk of one employee by collecting a premium of Rs.25/-; in the policy it is stated as ‘WC to employee 1’ and not as ‘driver’. Hence, the contention that the employee referred to in the policy related to only the driver cannot be accepted. 4. Hence, the contention that the employee referred to in the policy related to only the driver cannot be accepted. 4. In the context of the contention urged, it is relevant to refer to sub-section (5) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as follows: “147................................................. ....................................................... (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liablity which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” (Underlining supplied) In the light of the above provision of law, it is not permissible for the appellant-Insurance Company to avoid the liablity on the ground that the deceased-employee was not permitted to be carried in the vehicle or such a risk was not required to be covered in law when the risk of one employee is expressly covered under the insurance policy. In view of Section 147(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is not permissible for an insurer to avoid any liability relating to the risk expressly covered under the policy on the ground that such a risk was not required to be covered or could not have been covered in law. Therefore, the contention urged to the contrary cannot be accepted and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. 5. The Registry is directed to transfer the amount lying in deposit with this Court to the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere forthwith. The Commissioner is directed to invest the amounts that have fallen to the shares of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein (widow and children of the deceased) in separate Fixed Deposits in their respective names for a period of ten years in any Nationalised Bank in Davanagere; they shall not be permitted to withdraw any amount till the date of amturity except the periodical interest that would accrue on the said deposits. This direction for deposit is given in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ). Appeal dismissed.