DIVISIONAL MANGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. CHANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation the Insurer has filed the present appeal questioning its liability to satisfy the award. The case sought to be made out is that the claimant was working as a labourer in the tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-33:1119-1120. That on 10-2-2006 the driver of the tractor-trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes due to which the claimant fell down from the trailer and sustained grievous injuries. That the injuries sustained by the claimant arose during the course of employment. The injuries have resulted in permanent disability. Hence, the compensation was sought under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner by the impugned order granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,800/- along with interest. Questioning its liability to satisfy the award the insurer has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Smt. Preeti Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the accident has not occurred during the course of the employment. That the contents of the FIR vide Ex. P. 1 would show that the accident occurred when the tractor-trailer was stationery. The claimant and others got down from the tractor trailer in order to drink water and at that time an unknown Jeep came and hit him. He suffered injuries. This is the contents of the FIR. Therefore, it is pleaded that if the contents of the FIR in terms of Ex. P. 1 are to be accepted, it runs contrary to the claim Petition. The FIR would clearly show that the claimant was not injured in the course of the employment when the accident occurred. It is further contended that the policy for the vehicle in question was a farmers package policy. That the plea put forth is that the trailer was being used for transportation of stones for construction purpose. Hence it violates the terms of the policy. Therefore it is pleaded that the Insurer be absolved of its liability to satisfy the award. In support whereof she places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2010 10 SCC 536 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore v Nagaraja K.H. and Another,2011 2 KarLJ 511 .

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Kimman, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 defends the impugned order. He contends that the accident occurred during and in the course of the employment. That it cannot be said that he was not employed when the accident took place. In support of his case he relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Geetha and Others , : ILR 2009 Kar. 2379 (DB).