Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 971 (KAR)

P. Venkateshwar Rao v. Sarojamma, Dist Raichur

2010-09-07

N.K.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the harvesting vehicle bearing registration No.AP-25/L-7510 challenging the judgment and award dated 1.2.2007, passed in MVC No.24/2006 on the file of MACT and Fast Track Court-III, Raichur, in so far as it pertains to fixing of liability to pay compensation on him. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The appellant herein is the owner of harvesting vehicle which is classified and registered as motor vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act 1988, with Registration No.AP-25/L-7510. As such, the 6th respondent herein has issued Motor Vehicle policy to the said vehicle. The appellant herein having got the aforesaid harvesting vehicle insured with the 6th respondent herein, was utilizing the same for the said purpose. On 22.12.2005, when the said vehicle was used for purposes of harvesting in the land of Harijan Yellappa, the same was being driven by one Sahebsingh, 5th respondent herein. The harvesting work was carried by one Sharanabasappa who was appointed by the appellant herein for said purpose. At about 8.30 a.m. when the said vehicle was leaving the land of Yellappa, with Sharanabasappa sitting on it, the said vehicle while passing under the live wire of KPTCL, came in contact with Sharanabasappa, resulting in his electrocution and instantaneous death. 3. Hence, his widow, minor children and aged mother filed claim petition seeking compensation for his death in the said accident against the driver, owner and insurer of said vehicle. In the said proceedings, KPTCL was arrayed as one of the respondent. In the said proceedings, claimants sought for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-on the ground that the deceased Sharanabasappa was employed under the appellant herein on monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. At the relevant time of accident he was 30 years and sole bread winner of the family. In the said proceedings the owner – appellant herein and the insurance company were duly served and they contested the matter. 4. The court below, after recording evidence both on behalf of the claimants as well as the respondents, on appreciation of the material evidence on record, partially allowed the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.4,18,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition i.e. from 19.01.2006 till the date of realization of the entire amount. 4. The court below, after recording evidence both on behalf of the claimants as well as the respondents, on appreciation of the material evidence on record, partially allowed the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.4,18,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition i.e. from 19.01.2006 till the date of realization of the entire amount. However, while fixing liability, the courts below fastened the same on the appellant herein, holding that, though the said harvesting vehicle is automobile, under the policy issued vide Ex.R7, liability to pay compensation is restricted to only one employee i.e., driver. Therefore, deceased Sharanabasappa was unauthorized occupant in the vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for his death. 5. The court below relying upon the Judgment rendered by this court in the matter reported in 2006 ACJ 671 has held that the presence of deceased Sharanabasappa in the harvesting vehicle at the relevant point of time is compared to that of passengers sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and held that Sharanabasappa was unauthorized occupant of the vehicle at the time of accident as such, there is no liability on the insurer of the vehicle to pay compensation for his death, therefore, dismissed the claim petition as against the 6th respondent herein who was respondent No.3 in the court below. 6. The appellant herein who is the owner of the vehicle, being aggrieved by the said finding of the court below has come up in appeal challenging the same on the ground that the harvesting vehicle purchased by him is a motor vehicle, as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the said vehicle is registered as motor vehicle by the insurer – respondent No.6 in this appeal by collecting the required premium. At the time of accident, the policy issued by 6th respondent herein was in force. 7. Further under the said policy liability towards one employee was covered on payment of additional premium of Rs.25/-. It is further contended that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the liability to pay compensation to the driver in case of injury or death is covered under Section 147(i)(a) of the Act. The additional premium of Rs.25/-collected towards one employee is in addition to the liability arising against the injury or death caused to the driver. 8. It is further contended that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the liability to pay compensation to the driver in case of injury or death is covered under Section 147(i)(a) of the Act. The additional premium of Rs.25/-collected towards one employee is in addition to the liability arising against the injury or death caused to the driver. 8. In this appeal, notice is duly served on the insurance company and also claimants. They entered appearance through counsel and contested the appeal. On going through the appeal memo and also judgment rendered by the court below, the following point arises for consideration of this court: Whether the court below was justified in refusing to fasten liability on the insurer on the ground that the policy covered liability to only one employee i.e., driver? Heard counsel for appellant and respondents. Perused the pleadings, evidence and judgment and also copy of the insurance policy produced and marked as Ex.R7, this court hold the aforesaid point for consideration in the negative for the following reasons: 9. The fact that the appellant herein is the owner of the vehicle in question is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle is insured with the 6th respondent herein. The accident resulting in death of Sharanabasappa has occurred on 22.12.2005, during the period when the said policy was in force. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle is insured as a motor vehicle and the 6th respondent has collected premium and it is also not in dispute that in the said policy additional premium of Rs.25/-is paid by the appellant herein to cover one employee in the said vehicle under W.C.Act. 10. As could be seen from the impugned judgment passed in the court below, the court below has proceeded on the premise that, the offending vehicle is not a motor vehicle and it is only a harvesting machine, that the policy issued covers the liability towards one employee i.e., the driver. Such premise on which the court below has proceeded is baseless for the reason that, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the liability towards driver of the vehicle is statutorily covered under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, under the circumstances, the additional premium of Rs.25/-collected is not towards the liability of the driver. Such premise on which the court below has proceeded is baseless for the reason that, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the liability towards driver of the vehicle is statutorily covered under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, under the circumstances, the additional premium of Rs.25/-collected is not towards the liability of the driver. On the contrary, the said additional premium is in respect of one employee in addition to driver. Incidentally the vehicle in question is harvesting vehicle which cannot be operated without the assistance of any helper in addition to driver. Therefore, the contention of the 6th respondent that deceased Sharanabasappa was in unauthorised occupation of the vehicle in question at the time of accident cannot be accepted. 11. Therefore, when once it is held that the said person is not an unauthorized occupant the liability to pay compensation towards death or injury suffered to the said employee in the course of his employment while he is travelling in the said vehicle is automatically fastened on the insurer, 6th respondent herein. In view of that both appellant as well as the 6th respondent – insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants i.e., respondent 1 to 4 herein, for the death of Sharanabasappa in the aforesaid accident. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the owner is allowed modifying the judgment and award fixing liability to pay compensation both on the appellant as well as the 6th respondent – insurer. Consequently, the liability to pay compensation is fastened on 6th respondent – insurer under the modified judgment and award. 13. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part without any order as to costs. 14. Office is directed to refund the statutory amount deposited by the appellant – owner of the vehicle forthwith.