UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. SURESHA, S/O RANGEGOWDA AND MARIGOWDA, S/O JAVAREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant issued a Farmers' Package Insurance Policy in favour of the 2nd Respondent -owner of tractor -trailer bearing registration No. KA -13 -r -1238 and 1239. The 1st Respondent instituted a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan Sub -Division, Hassan, against the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant, contending that, he was a loader in the said vehicle and in the course of employment, the vehicle met with an accident on 11.01.2004, he sustained injury which is a partial permanent injury, resulting in loss of earning capacity and hence both the employer and the insurer should pay the compensation.

(2.) THE Appellant, who is the 2nd Respondent in the claim petition, contested the claim by filing statement of objections, interalia contending that, the Petitioner was not a loader in the tractor -trailer and also denied the age, income and relationship with the 1st Respondent -owner of the tractor. However, it admitted the issuance of insurance cover to the vehicle in question covering the period of accident and contended that, the liability as per the terms and conditions of the policy is subject to validity of driving licence, permit regulations and policy conditions. It also contended that, the vehicle being a tractor, cannot be used for carrying passengers and that the owner of the vehicle had used the vehicle for carrying passengers and that there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy and that the petition against the insurance company is not maintainable.

(3.) SRI A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, firstly contended that, the Commissioner has not taken into consideration the evidence on record and the findings in the impugned judgment are perverse and illegal. He contended that, the finding recorded with regard to relationship of Petitioner and the owner of tractor -trailer is wholly erroneous and so also the percentage of physical disability/functional disability as well as in the matter of assessing the loss of earning capacity. Secondly, in saddling the liability on the Appellant, there is material error and illegality. Thirdly, the date from which the interest has been awarded on the award amount is contrary to the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, AIR 2007 SC 1208 .