NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER SRI C.R. SUBRAMANYA Vs. SRI K. BOMMANNA GOWDA S/O. LATE ODIYAPPA GOWDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, as found by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub -Division II, Mangalore, are as under: 5th Respondent was the owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA -21 -8378. The Appellant had issued the insurance policy covering the risk of the said vehicle for the period 16.1.2006 to 15.1.2007. One Vinay Kumar was the driver of the said autorickshaw. The autorickshaw was plying for hire. On 15.10.2006, the driver/Vinay Kumar, went to the house of a passenger one Fakir Sab, to pick him. The autorickshaw having been parked inside the compound of Fakir Sab and when Vinay Kumar was waiting in the autorickshaw for the passenger, Fakir Sab and his son brought a bag from the house and were about to put the same into the autorickshaw, a blast occurred, Vinay Kumar sustained fatal injuries and succumbed at the spot. The autorickshaw was completely damaged. The jurisdictional police registered a case and conducted investigation. Parents of the deceased Vinay Kumar filed an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the insured and the insurer of the autorickshaw. In response to the notice received from the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the insured appeared and filed written statement and admitted that, the autorickshaw belonged to him, Vinay Kumar being driver in the autorickshaw, the occurrence of the accident on 15.10.2006 and the sustaining of fatal injuries resulting in the death of Vinay Kumar and the vehicle having been completely damaged. He stated that, he does not know the exact reason for the blast/accident, but came to know that, the deceased was called upon to go to the house of Mr. Fakir Sab, who had hired the autorickshaw at fateful time and date. The insurer filed written statement and opposed the claim and denied its liability to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, based on the pleadings, raised the issues. The, 1st applicant deposed as AW.1. One Gangadhara Gowda was examined as AW.2. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that, the deceased was a workman, injury was caused to the workman by the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,48,000/ - with interest at 12% p.a.

(3.) SRI B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that, the claim petition ought to have been dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on the sole ground that, No. accident causing the death of the driver had occurred while using the insured vehicle for the permitted usage. Learned Counsel submitted that, the passenger vehicle was allowed to be used by its driver for loading crackers by a manufacturer of crackers. According to the learned Counsel, the driver taken care to avoid using the passenger autorickshaw for carrying crackers, the accident could have been avoided and in the circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is not justified in fastening the liability on the Appellant to pay the compensation amount.