AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—The Oriental Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 21.07.2010 in KAPAKA/SR-204/2009, on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for workmen''s compensation, Sub-Division-II, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ''Commissioner'', for short) fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants.
Claimants are the father and mother of the deceased Shankara Rachappa Kapoli, who died in the road traffic accident occurred on 4.6.2009. They had filed claim petition before the Commissioner contending that their son, deceased Shankara Rachappa Kapoli was working as coolie in a tractor-trailor bearing registration No. KA 22/T-2931-2932 belonging to the 3rd respondent herein. On 4.6.2009 on the direction of the owner of tractor-trailer the deceased after loading bricks and cement, proceeded to Muthnal village, for unloading the same for construction of cattle shed, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer, the driver applied sudden brake, as a result of which, Shankara Rachappa Kapoli, who was sitting on the tractor-trailer, fell down from the tractor-trailor and the wheel of the said tractor-trailer ran over him resulting in his death and that the death had occurred during the course and out of the employment. In the claim petition, the claimants had contended that, at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 25 years and was getting salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. He was the only bread earner of the family and due to his untimely death the family had become destitute and as such sought for grant of compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs.
Pursuant to the notice issued by the Commissioner, the 1st respondent entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the occurrence of accident and that the deceased was working as coolie in the tractor-trailer. Since the vehicle was covered by insurance policy, the insurer has to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the owner of the vehicle.
The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of coolie working in a tractor-trailer. The policy issued by the insurer is a Kissan Package Policy and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed necessary issues. The 2nd claimant, mother of the deceased Shankara Rachappa Kapoli, examined as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On behalf of the respondents, the policy of the tractor-trailer got marked as Ex. R1 with the consent of the parties.
Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Commissioner held that due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer and because of applying brake, the deceased Shankara Rachappa Kapoli, who was working as coolie in the tractor-trailer, fell down from the tractor-trailer and was ran over by the wheels of the said vehicle resulting in his death on the spot on 4.6.2009 during the course and out of employment, and that the claimants being the dependants of the deceased were entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month, no documents were produced to substantiate the said compensation. The said contention was not supported by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement admitting the occurrence of accident and the deceased was working as coolie in the tractor-trailer. In the absence of any material with regard to the income, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 3,500/- per month since the accident had occurred in the year 2009. The WCC taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 29 years on the basis of post mortem report, applying the relevant factor of 211.79 awarded a sum of Rs. 3,70,632/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of passing the order and interest at 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the award. The Insurance Company had not led any evidence to substantiate their contention. Hence, liability was fixed on the Insurance Company since the tractor-trailer was covered by the insurance.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal contending that a coolie working in a tractor-trailer was not covered under the insurance policy and the Commissioner, ignoring the said aspect, has fastened the liability on the appellant which is contrary to the law.
Sri. M.Y. Katagi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the tractor-trailer was covered by the Kissan Package Policy. The said policy does not cover the risk of coolie working in the tractor-trailer. Further, the tractor-trailer was used for transportation of bricks and cement. Hence, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants.
On the other hand, Sri Ravi V. Hosmani, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 argued in support of the judgment and order passed by the WCC and contended that the issue raised by the appellant is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi and Others . The Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that the combination of tractor-trailer is nothing but a goods vehicle. A coolie travelling in the tractor-trailer is covered by the policy. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and order and other relevant records.
The records clearly disclose that the deceased, Shankara Rachappa Kapoli was working as coolie in the tractor-trailer belonging to the 3rd respondent. Due to the road traffic accident occurred on 4.6.2009, the deceased died during the course and out of employment. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m., no documents had been produced on record. The owner of the tractor-trailer has not supported the case of claimants. In view of that, the WCC has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- p.m. applying the relevant factor and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,70,632/-. Insofar as the liability is concerned, though the appellant taken the contention that the policy issued for the tractor-trailer is a Kissan Package Policy, a coolie travelling in a tractor-trailer is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above. In para-36 of the judgment, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as under:
"36. The combination of tractor-trailer is nothing short of a goods carriage. Therefore, when once it is held as goods carriage vehicle, by virtue of section II-1(I) of the fully worded policy and also provisions of section 147, the claim of the claimants on hand is covered. The claimants in the present case have rightly approached the Workmen''s Commissioner and the Commissioner was justified in holding that the injured claimants were coolies under the owner, viz., the insured. In the present case, they were carrying stones for constructing a ridge in the land belonging to the insured so as to store the water. This is nothing but part and parcel of agricultural operations. The claimants were neither gratuitous passengers nor persons who were travelling in tractor-trailer for the purpose other than agricultural operations. Looking to the avocation of the claimants, the computation of compensation by the Commissioner is just and proper. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the awards of the Commissioner. Therefore, the claimants in the present case were rightly held as covered under policy, Exh.R2."
Apart from that the appellant had not led any evidence to substantiate their contention. Hence, it is not open to urge in the appeal. Hence, the appellant has to compensate the claimants. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the WCC and pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
The amount in deposit made before this Court be transferred to the WCC, Belgaum.