LAWS(KAR)-2005-6-84

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. B RAMASWAMY

Decided On June 24, 2005
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
V/S
B.RAMASWAMY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, bellary. The substantial question of law raised in these appeals include whether the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had the authority to pass the award contrary to section 21 (1) and the proviso thereto under Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, in entertaining the claim petition in respect of a person who had suffered injuries within the limits of another Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and whether Commissioner for Workmen's compensation can ignore the glaring discrepancies and the material on the record to indicate that the claim was concocted and false.

(2.) MR. B. C. Seetharama Rao, counsel for the appellant, drew my attention to several aspects. Firstly, that the accident in which the claimants were injured had occurred in Andhra Pradesh and the injured was treated in Andhra Pradesh, the claimants reside permanently in Andhra pradesh and the employer has its registered office also there. The accident was reported at Alur in Kurnool District, Andhra pradesh. The F. I. R. was filed by claimants in M. F. A. No. 5890 of 2003 and having regard to the age of the claimants, it could not be said that they were capable of doing any labour work. He also pointed out that the vehicle was proceeding from Madhya pradesh to Karnataka carrying coal and it cannot be said that the loaders were being carried in the lorry, inter-State, in view of rule 100 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

(3.) PER contra, the counsel for the respondents would contend that the defence available to the insurance company are circumscribed by section 149 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and that the insurance company is not in a position to raise any defence other than what are provided under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the appeals are not maintainable in the absence of an order under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and further that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the appeal.