NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMAMURTHY HANUMANTHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent ? Insurance company in C.R. No.49/2003 and 50/2003 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen?s Compensation, Bangalore has come up in these appeals challenging the common order dated 17.03.2005, passed in the aforesaid two claim petitions.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to these appeals are as under: The claimants Ramamurthy in C.R. 49/2003 and Nagaraju in C.R.50/2003 contend that they were working as loader and unloaders in tractor trailor bearing No.KA-05-T-2887-2888, belonging to first respondent and insured with second respondent, before the Commissioner for Workmen?s Compensation.

(3.) THE second respondent ? insurance company being aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner and also the order awarding compensation to the claimants in such exaggerated amounts has come up in these appeals challenging the same, on the ground that the accident itself is doubtful for the reason that the accident is stated to have taken place on 9.00 p.m. at Shivaladappa Hill. THE statement of claimants in FIR which has come up at an undisputed point of time, disclose that they were travelling in the tractor-trailor which was carrying size-stones load to Shivaladappa Hill and from that place they were bringing fertilizers. On the way the said tractor capsized resulting in injuries to claimants. According to 2nd respondent Insurance Company the said statement is incorrect and concocted. It is also contended that the policy issued to the tractor in question is a Agricultural Farmers Package Policy as such the liability to cover the risk of coolies carried therein does not arise, since it is not a transport vehicle the question of paying compensation to them does not arise. It is also contended that there is error on the part of the Commissioner in taking the wages of claimants at Rs.3,500/- per month, which is contrary to the notified wages to the loaders and unloaders under Minimum Wages Act. That the assessment of loss of earning capacity to claimants at 60% and 40% is contrary to the material evidence available on record.