Divisional Manager vs Thippeswamy

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The appellant/Insurer is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Raichur in WCA. No. 30/2009.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the order of the Commissioner would contend that the insurance policy was a farmer's package policy under which the vehicle involved in the accident was covered with certain restrictions. The driver and the loader who were the injured/claimants before the Commissioner have not established the relationship of employer and employee with the owner of the vehicle. As such, the insurer has no liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle more particularly, when the vehicle was used for commercial purposes other than the agricultural purposes for which the insurance policy was issued. The Tribunal without appreciating this vital factor, allowed the claim petition awarding the compensation contrary to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the "Act" for short).

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants supporting the order passed by the Commissioner contends that there is no restriction under the farmers package policy for the insurer to indemnify the insured. It is also contended that the insurer cannot be absolved from the liability on the mere allegations made that the offending vehicle was used for commercial purposes i.e. other than for agricultural purposes. The driver and the loader were employed by the owner of the vehicle and the accident occurred in the course of employment when they were travelling in the Tractor and Trailer in order to carry the crops viz. ground nuts, jowar and agricultural implements to the fields. The Commissioner appreciating the evidence on record awarded the just and reasonable compensation, which cannot be found fault with.

Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.

It is not in dispute that the vehicle was covered under the farmers package policy. The primary ground of challenge made by the insurer is that the driver and loader met with an accident when the vehicle was used for commercial purposes contrary to the terms and conditions of farmers package policy. At this juncture, it would be beneficiary to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmibai and others v. Shantappa P. Karnat, in MFA No. 12587/2007 and connected matter disposed of on 10-6-2014, wherein, this Court has observed thus :

"Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the claimants, these are decisions which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer would be authorities for cases that were decided and in the absence of any restriction as to the manner in which a tractor could be used, except that it could not be used for a purpose other than agriculture purposes and apparently in the present case, it was being used for an agricultural purpose, albeit for the benefit of the deceased, it cannot be said that the tractor was being used for any purpose other than agricultural purposes. Therefore, either with reference to the Certificate of insurance, the guidelines, or the provisions of the MV Act, the insurance company cannot be said to be absolved of its liability."

This appeal is by the insurer under Section 30(1) of the Act. As could be seen from the scheme of the Farmer's Package Policy, no specific restriction is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer as contended except arguing that the tractor and trailer was used for loading and unloading the agricultural produce, as such would not come within the farmers package policy. As noticed, the vehicle was used for an agricultural purpose for carrying the agricultural produce and agricultural implements to the fields. In such circumstances, I do not see any question of law much less substantial questions of law arising for determination of this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.