NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, SRI C.R. SUBRAMANYA Vs. SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O. LATE H. UMESH NAIKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, an order/award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chitradurga District, allowing the claim petition filed by the Respondents 1 to 6 and directing the Appellant to deposit the compensation amount with interest, has been questioned. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the claim petition filed before the Commissioner.

(2.) THE 1st Petitioner is the wife, Petitioners 2 to 4 are the children and Petitioners 5 and 6 are the parents of one Umesh Naika, who was employed by the 1st Respondent as loader and unloader in his tractor -trailer bearing registration No. KA -16 -473 and 474, which was insured by the Appellant. That on 07.04.2005, the said vehicle was driven by a driver Thippeswamy. After loading the sand at Kalaghatta, in order to reach Bhimasamudra via Hire -Kandavadi Village, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied brake suddenly and as a result Umesh Naika was thrown out of the tractor -trailer and was caught under the wheels, sustained fatal injuries and while was being shifted to the District Hospital, Chitradurga, died. The Petitioners being the dependents of the deceased Umesh Naika, filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation against the owner of the tractor -trailer/employer and the insurer of the vehicle. The owner of the tractor -trailer/employer appeared and filed objection statement dated 23.01.2006, wherein it was admitted that, Umesh Naika worked as a loader and unloader in his tractor -trailer bearing registration No. KA -16 -473 and 474 and the fact of he having directed him to bring the sand from Kalaghatta in the tractor -trailer for own use, the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, Umesh Naika sustaining fatal injuries and death. He also admitted the payment of wages at Rs. 2,800/ - p.m. and bata of Rs. 50/ - per day. He submitted that, the vehicles were insured and the liability has to be discharged by the insurance company. The 2nd Respondent insurance company filed statement of objections and denied the petition averments and contested the claim.

(3.) SRI B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that, the Appellant had covered the offending tractor -trailer under Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles Policy, which did not cover the risk of any other person other than the driver and the evidence of RW -1 has not been correctly appreciated and hence, the impugned order/award being perverse, the appeal may be allowed.