Oriental Insurance Company, Hassan vs Revanna and another

S.N. Satyanarayana, J. - The 2nd respondent - Insurer in S.R. No. 14/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has came up in this appeal impuging the judgment dated 20-7-2010. Wherein the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent herein was allowed and compensation was awarded in a sum of Rs. 1,95,592/- for the injuries said to have suffered in the course of his employment with the 1st respondent-owner of the tractor-trailer bearing registration No. KA-13 T-5618-5619.

Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under :-

Case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 20-12-2006, he was travelling in the aforesaid tractor-trailer which was loaded with stone pebbles. It is stated that he was sitting on the tractor and was proceeding from Guddada Theranya village to Hassan. On the way, at about 4.30 p.m., the said vehicle got capsized near Ankapura Mosalehosahalli cross resulting in the 1st respondent herein falling down from the vehicle and suffered injuries to his right eye. Thereafter, it is stated that he lodged a complaint with the police on the same day and subsequently, claim petition was filed.

In the proceedings before the Tribunal, a specific defence was taken that the vehicle which was insured is for agricultural purpose, whereas at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and that the injured was sitting on the tractor at the time of accident and as such, he is not entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident, since the accident was caused due to his negligence in sitting and travelling on the tractor. However, the said objections were not looked into and the claim petition was allowed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,95,592/-, which is under challenge in this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the contesting respondent.

On going through the materials avail-able on record, it is clearly seen, Ex.P 1 would indicate that at the time of filing the complaint, it is clearly stated that when the accident took place, the injured was sitting on the tractor and proceeding towards Hassan and that stone pebbles were loaded in the said tractor-trailer. In the evidence, the 1st respondent has admitted that he was working as coolie in the said tractor-trailer which was meant for agricultural purpose. When that being the case, there are two violations, one is that the tractor-trailer insured for agricultural activities was used for commercial purpose instead of agricultural activities. Secondly, the 1st respondent-claimant was sitting on the tractor and travelling which is prohibited.

In that view of the matter, this Court find that the judgment rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in awarding compensation is erroneous. In this appeal, the 1st respondent tried to rely upon the judgment rendered in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Marathi (ILR 2011 Kar 4139) and submitted that there is specific finding with reference to the goods carried in the tractor-trailer are covered by the policy. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid judgment was rendered was on different set of facts which are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Admittedly, that is a situation where the tractor was covered for the agricultural purpose and the coolies who were travelling in pursuance of the agricultural activities were considered for compensation and this judgment does not help to the claimant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer is hereby allowed. The judgment and award dated 20-7-2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in S.R. No. 14/2007 is hereby set aside. In view of the appeal being allowed, the amount in deposit is directed to be released in favour of the insurer.