The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Parasappa and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant - insurer and Sri T. Basavaraja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. This appeal is by the insurer is directed against the order and award passed by the Commissioner - Workmen''s Compensation, Davangere District, Davangere, in WCA/C.R. No. 82/2007, whereunder claim petition filed u/s 22 of Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, by the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Viajayamma (workman) came to be allowed and a compensation of Rs. 3,17,685/- has been awarded.

It. is the contention of Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant - insurer that offending vehicle was issued with a special type of policy namely, to the Tractor Trailer and not as a commercial vehicle and as such, Insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim of appellant-insurer. It is further contended that evidence would indicate that deceased was a passenger in the trailer and her risk was not covered under the special type of policy issued in respect of Tractor Trailer and in respect of passengers or coolies, no premium had been collected.

Said issue is no more res integra, in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi and Others .

That apart, policy issued to the offending vehicle would also indicate that offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle and it covers the risk of coolie or employee travelling in the vehicle. In that view of the matter also, order and award passed by the Commissioner � Workmen''s Compensation does not call for interference. Hence, contention of Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao, stands rejected.

It requires to be noticed that in the instant case on account of death of mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, they along with their father had filed a claim petition seeking compensation. Unfortunately, father namely respondent No. 1 also expired during the pendency of the present proceedings. As such, I.A. No. 1/2013 was filed by the appellant � insurer seeking appointment of guardian to protect the interest of minor children. Though proposed guardian was none other than grandfather of minor children-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely i.e., father of deceased respondent No. 1 who has also remained unrepresented. As such, this Court was of the view that proposed guardian will be unable to protect the interest of minor children. Hence, I.A. No. 1/2013 came to be rejected.

In view of the fact that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are minors even as on date, their interest requires to be protected. It is noticed from the records that compensation awarded has been deposited by the appellant - insurer in the Registry of this Court. Hence, ends of justice would be met if the amount in deposit is ordered to be kept in a Fixed Deposit in the ratio of 30:35:35 in the name of minor children i.e., respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 for the period till they attain the age of majority. On their attaining the age of majority, they would be entitled to make an application seeking for release of the amount. Registry shall ensure that Fixed Deposit is made as ordered hereinabove in the names of minor children namely, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Fixed Deposit receipt issued by the Bank shall be handed over to the custody of Secretary, Karnataka Legal Service Authorities, Bangalore, who shall ensure that minor children namely respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on attaining the age of majority, would receive the proceeds of Fixed Deposit inclusive of interest. With these observations appeal stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Let copy of this order be made available free of cost to Secretary, Karnataka Legal Services Authority, Bangalore.