Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 120 (KAR)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Naveena

2011-01-31

H.G.RAMESH, K.L.MANJUNATH

body2011
Judgment H.G. Ramesh, J., 1. By consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment. This appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2006 passed by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mysore District, Mysore, in case No.WCA/FC/CR:38/2003. By the impugned judgment, the Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,05,775/- along with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 16.06.2003 for the death of one Somashekar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.5.2003, while he was traveling as a conductor cum cleaner in the maxi-cab bearing No.KA-11-2820. The compensation is awarded to the widow and children of the deceased. 2. The finding that the deceased died in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with respondent No.5 is not in dispute. 3. The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel for the insurance company is that the deceased was a conductor cum cleaner in a maxi-cab and therefore his risk is neither required to be covered in law nor is factually covered under the policy. It is relevant to state that a maxi-cab is a ‘public service vehicle’ as defined under Section 2 (35) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’). Hence, in view of Section 147 of the Act, the risk of a conductor in a Maxicab is required to be covered as provided therein (Section 147 of the Act). At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased had no conductor’s licence as contemplated under section 29 of the Act and hence making the appellant-insurer liable to pay the award amount is illegal. This contention also has to be rejected as non-holding of a conductor’s licence is not one of the statutory defences provided for an insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The amount lying in deposit with this Court shall be transferred to the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mysore, forthwith. Appeal dismissed.