UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KARIBASAPPA VEERAPPA AMARAVATHI; MUKHESHAPPA KOTRAPPA ANGADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 made in WCA NF 38/2003 passed by the Labour Officer & Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as 'WCC' for short), filed this appeal.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that he was working as a hamali in a minidoor goods auto bearing registration no. KA-27- 4051 belonged to the second respondent herein. On 11.06.2002 as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent herein was proceeding to Magodu for unloading the goods. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle the claimant was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained injuries to all parts of the body. The injured was treated at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere. Thereafter he was treated at Government Hospital. The accident had occurred during the course and out of employment. In view of the injuries sustained, the claimant is not in a position to work as hamali. The owner of the vehicle was paying the salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and batta of Rs.50/- per day. As on the date of accident, the insurance policy covers the risk of the appellant and hence he sought for compensation.

(3.) Pursuant to the notices issued by the WCC the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle entered appearance. The second respondent-insurer filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that there is no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and owner of the offending vehicle. The insurance policy not covers the risk of the hamali working in the offending vehicle. The first respondent in the claim petition is not the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. The brother of the injured has taken him to the hospital. In the hospital the history of injury is clearly mentioned as 'injuries sustained due to fall of the wall'. The complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional Police after two months of the alleged accident. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.