AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J. - The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 18-12-2009 made in KAR/KNP/CR-218/2007 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as `WCC'') fastening the liability on them to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal representatives of deceased.
The husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, one Piddappa S/o. Durgappa was working as a loader and un-loader in Karnataka Warehousing Corporation Limited, Sindhanur. He was working as a coolie for the last 15 years. On 11-10-2005, while he was removing the rice bags, 20 rice bags fell on the said Piddappa, due to which he sustained injuries. He had taken treatment in the Government Hospital and he died during the course of treatment on 13-10-2005. Thereafter, the complaint has been lodged before the jurisdictional police by the legal representatives of the deceased and claim petition was filed contending that the deceased was working as a coolie in the Warehouse Corporation and getting income of Rs. 150/- per day and the accident had occurred during the course and out of employment. Apart from that, the deceased having personal insurance for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - with United India Assurance Company, the claimants are entitled for the compensation from the said insurance company for the insurance policy bearing No. 240203/47/51/ 5061. The insurance policy was in existence as on the date of death. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the compensation.
The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also disputed the relationship of master and servant and specifically contended that the deceased was working under the 6th respondent herein for loading and unloading the rice. The deceased was working under the contractor by name Sri M. Vishveshwarayya Lorry Handling and Transport, Bellary. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
The respondent No. 2-insurance company has taken the contention that no document has been produced to show that the deceased was a workman. The respondent No. 2 i.e. appellant herein has insured workers under the individual Janatha personal accident policy and the capital sum insured is Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, the liability of the insurer is confined to Rs. 1,00,000/- only.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed the necessary issues.
The claimants in order to prove their case, the first claimant got examined herself as RW. 1 and also examined another witness as P.W. 2 and got marked the document as Ex.P1 to Ex.P. 10. On behalf of the insurance company one of the officers was examined as R.W. 1. The insurance policy is marked as Ex.R.1.
The WCC taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and other exhibits produced by the parties held that the deceased died during the course and out of employment and he was workman as on the date of the accident. At the time of death the deceased was aged about 30 years. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration income of the deceased as Rs. 3,900/- per month being paid to the coolies working in Warehouse Corporation and deducting 50% thereof, by applying relevant factor of 207.98 awarded a sum of Rs. 4,05,561/- with interest at 12% p.a. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the WCC, the insurance company filed this appeal.
It is relevant to mention here that the Managing Director, Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, Bangalore, filed MFA No. 2645/2010 challenging the judgment and order dated 18-12-2009 passed by WCC. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 9-22-2020. The issue is only with regard to the personal insurance policy taken by the deceased with the insurance company. The occurrence of accident, death of the husband of the first claimant during the course and out of employment is not in dispute. The liability fastened on respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the claim petition has become final. The dispute is only with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant-insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ex.R.1 produced by the insurance company clearly disclose that the employees working under the first respondent are having individual Janatha personal accident policy with the second respondent insurance company and second respondent insurance company has agreed to satisfy the compensation in case of death or bodily injury in an accident, to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The insurance company has also not disputed the said fact. The liability fastened on the insurance company is only to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to death of Piddappa. Hence, insurance company can not escape from their liability of payment of Rs. 1,00.000/- as per the insurance policy. The insurance policy referred to above was in existence as on the date of the accident. Hence, the insurer has to compensate the claimant to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the remaining amount is to be compensated by the other respondents.
No ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with that portion of the order, fastening the liability on the insurance company to compensate Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of deceased. Accordingly, I pass the following.
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raichur for disbursement.