Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 654 (KAR)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAMESH

2014-07-11

H.G.RAMESH

body2014
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Insurer challenging the relationship of employer and employee on the ground that the claimant is none other than the son of the owner of the vehicle in question and that it is a vehicle owned under the family ownership. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision rendered in GOTTUMUKKALA APPALA NARASIMHA RAJU & OTHERS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 ACJ 1025 wherein the Apex Court observed that the owner of the vehicle joined hands with the claimant for laying a claim against the Insurance Company and, dismissed the claim petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, interaliarelied upon the decision rendered by this Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. HANUMANT AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 ACJ 251 wherein it was held that the jural relationship of employer and employee exists between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle who is none other than the father of the driver of the jeep, which was involved in the accident. 4. In the case on hand, what is not in dispute is that the claimant is the driver of the tractor, who sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 14.06.2005, while he was driving the tractor trailor bearing No.KA02/T1133 near Sondekoppa Road. However, it appears there is no involvement of any another vehicle. 5. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the vehicle belongs to the father and the claimant is the son working as a driver. Now the Insurance Company is before this Court contending that there cannot be jural relationship of employer and employee, having regard to the nature of the relationship of father and son between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant. 6. Of course, the Apex Court in the case 2007 ACJ 1025 cited above having doubted the relationship of employer and employee between the husband and wife dismissed the claim petition and held that there is no relationship of employer and employee. 7. In the case on hand, the son was the driver of the tractor and trailor and there may be relationship of father and son between the owner and driver of the vehicle, but for the purpose of legal relationship it may be treated as employer and employee. 7. In the case on hand, the son was the driver of the tractor and trailor and there may be relationship of father and son between the owner and driver of the vehicle, but for the purpose of legal relationship it may be treated as employer and employee. In such circumstances, the insurer has to pay the compensation having indemnified the owner of the vehicle for the injuries sustained in the accident, that too, in such genuine cases, there may not be any false claim of implication, as upheld by this Court in the decision cited above as their exists the jural relationship of employer and employee. 8. While in the case on hand, though the contention of the Insurer is that nothing has been stated except a joint family property (Movable) and as such the relationship of employer and employee is not in existence and rightly a false claim is made, I am of the considered opinion, that the human relationship should not take away the legal relationship of employer employee in a claim petition. The driver of the tractor – trailor was performing his duty, even though it is for the benefit of the family and the owner has paid the Insurance Company for indemnifying the vehicle, unless a false case is made out for compensation, it cannot be denied. The Insurer has not raised any other ground except this. 9. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits and the amount in deposit be transferred to the Small Causes Court, Bangalore for disbursement.