IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2636/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., III CROSS, NEHRU ROAD SHIMOGA REP. BY MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTING NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BANGALORE.
(BY SRI.R JAIPRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI K KUMAR @ SHIVANNA S/O RAJU GOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS YENTEGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI. P. SRINIVAS MAJOR RICE MERCHANT & LORRY OWNER KASTURIBA ROAD BHARAT FOOT WARE SHIMOGA TOWN SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
(R1 & R2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ...APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:21.09.2012 PASSED IN WCA/NF/SR-85/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,82,204/- WITH INTEREST @12%.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Even though the matter is listed for hearing the interim application, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.01.2012 passed in WCA/NF/SR- 85/2007 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Hassan Sub Division, Hassan.
3. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered during the course of the employment. It is stated that on 08.05.2007 when the claimant was driving Mini Lorry bearing KA-14/A-2301, a Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-2005 came from opposite side in a rash, negligent manner and dashed to the Mini lorry driven by the claimant. Due to which the claimant suffered grievous injuries. It is stated that the 1st respondent – owner of the lorry was paying the claimant salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.50/- as bata per day.
4. On issuance of summons, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Commissioner and filed their objections. Respondent No.1 – owner of the lorry filed objections stating that the claimant was working under him and while he was discharging his duties the accident occurred and the claimant suffered injuries. It is stated that the vehicle is covered by policy issued by the 2nd respondent – insurer. The 2nd respondent – Insurer filed statement of objections admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the vehicle driven by the claimant. The Commissioner based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for consideration :-
“-:ªÁzÁA±ÀU¼ÄÀÀ :-
1. CfðzÁgÀ vÁ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À°è PÁ«ÄðPÀ, vÀ£ÀUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
08.05.2007 gÀAzÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀÄAmÁzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¢AzÀ ±Á±ÀévÀ CAUÀ£ÀÆå£ÀvÉ GAmÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.05.2007 gÀAzÀÄ GAmÁzÀ JA¥ÁèAiÀiïªÉÄAmï EAdÄj¬ÄAzÀ vÀ£ÀUÉ ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ JµÀÄÖUÀ½PÉ £ÀµÀÖ GAmÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3. WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À JµÀÄÖ JAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?
5. ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¨sÁzÀågÀÄ?
6. wÃ¥ÀÄð?”
5. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.9. The Commissioner on appreciating the material placed on record awarded total compensation of Rs.1,82,204/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of accident till the date of deposit, and further saddled the liability on 2nd respondent – Insurer. The 2nd respondent – Insurer aggrieved by the saddling of liability on it is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Even though the respondents are served, there is no representation for them. Perused the entire material on record.
7. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the mini lorry had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It is his submission that the Commissioner failed to consider the said aspect of the matter and saddled the liability on it. Further the learned counsel submits that the claimant had light motor vehicle non transport license as on the date of accident. The claimant had no endorsement in his license for driving the transport vehicle.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the view, that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal. Under Section 30(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, an appeal could be entertained only if it gives rise to any substantial question of law. It is an admitted fact that the claimant was possessing light motor vehicle – non transport licence. There was no endorsement to drive Transport vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 has clarified that a person possessing light motor vehicle – non transport licence, can also drive the light motor transport vehicle. In view of the above decision, the contention raised by the appellant does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, I.A.No.3/2013 filed for stay does not survive for consideration, the application stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms