BHIMAVVA Vs. SHANKAR ALIAS ADYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the order dated 29-7-2003, passed by the Chief Justice, this reference is placed before us on 6-8-2003. The Division Bench vide order dated 7-7-2003 had referred these matters to the Full bench considering the law declared in noorulla v. P. K. Prabhakar, ILR 1999 Kant 2725 : (AIR 2000 Karnataka 1) is no longer good law in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court. The Full Bench of this Court, on consideration that Full Bench cannot sit in judgment on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench has made this Reference to a Five Judge Bench vide order dated 29-7-2003 in M. F. A. No. 2124/1993 c/w mfa Nos. 3586, 3808 and 4340 of 1997, mfa 3797/1994 and MFA 1800/1998. The question that arises for determination before this Bench is the extent of liability of insurance company to indemnify the owner under the Act policy against the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the M. V. Act) in a claim by injured workman or legal representatives of deceased workman who has opted to file claim petition before the Tribunal under the act. Whether such liability of insurance company to indemnify the owner is unlimited or limited to the extent of liability under the workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called W. C. Act ).

(2.) THE necessary facts leading to the reference, as stated by the learned counsel, are : one Hanumantharaya and three others alleged to be employed with Pampanagouda were travelling in tractor trolly bearing No. MEP 3725 driven by Shankar on 11-7-1989. Due to rash and negligent driving, at about 6 p. m. , the tractor trolly turned turtled near dyamonal resulting in death of Hanumantharaya and two other employees and causing injury to another employee. The mother and two minor children of Hanumantharaya filed claim petition in M. V. C. No. 348/1989 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- from respondents 1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of the said tractor. The petition was clubbed with other claim petitions arising out of the samg accident. After enquiry, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by the first respondent and awarded compensation of rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition and further held that compensation awarded shall be paid by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the insured, the third respondent-Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the award passed, the claimants preferred m. F. A. 2124/93, seeking for enhancement of compensation and to fasten liability on third respondent-Insurance Company.

(3.) BEFORE the Division Bench, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that insurance company is liable to satisfy the award irrespective of limit of their liability in respect of death or bodily injury to any workman under the Compensation act and relfed upon the provisions of Sec. 147 of the Act and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Noorulla v. P. K. Prabhakar, ilr 1999 Kajit 2725 : AIR 2000 Karnataka 1. Per contra, the learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that its liability is limited to liability under the Compensation Act and in absence of any additional liability undertaken by collecting additional premium, the liability cannot become higher or unlimited. He also submitted that in view of the provisions of Sec. 147 (1) and (2) of the Act and subsequent decisions rendered, noorullas case requires reconsideration.