LAWS(KAR)-2008-1-30

MAGAMMA ALIAS NAGARATHNA Vs. R CHANDRAMMA

Decided On January 14, 2008
NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA Appellant
V/S
R.CHANDRAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals are filed by the L. Rs of late. Puttaiah and other injured claimants against respondents 1 to 3 challenging the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in its judgment and award dated 27-11-2002 whereby, the Commissioner for Workmens' compensation, Tumkur, allowed the claim petitions in all the three cases and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE appellants in MFA 647/2003 are the wife and children of late. Puttaiah who is stated to be the coolie working under the respondent as loader and unloader, died on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor and Tailer by the respondent No. 2 resulting in accident that occurred on 4-7-1998. The appellants in MFA. 645/2003 and MFA. 646/ 2003 suffered various type of injuries in the said accident. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Regn. No. KA-02-833 and 834 which was duly insured with the 3rd respondent/ insurance Company and the same was in force as on the date of accident. But on the fateful day the deceased Puttaiah and the appellants in MFA. Nos. 645 and 646/2003 as loaders and unloaders were sitting in the Tractor and Trailer bearing Regn. No. KA-02-T-601 but the Tractor KA-02-833 belongs to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent being the owner used the Trailer KA-02-T-601 which was not insured, therefore, the commissioner for Workmens' Compensation after recording the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the Insurance Company/ respondent No. 3 fixed the liability on the respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and driver of the vehicle on the ground that the policy obtained from the respondent No. 3 is to cover the risk of the driver as well as coolies in respect of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Regn. No. KA-02-833 and 834 respectively and that the Trailer bearing Regn. No. KA-02-T-601 is not insured with the 3rd respondent or any other insurer.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel fore the appellant is that late Puttaiah as well as the appellants in MFA. Nos. 645 and 646 are the poor coolies and they should not suffer since the Tractor KA-02-833 and 834 are duly insured and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, that without the use of the tractor, Trailer cannot be moved. Even if another Trailer was used to transport the agricultural produce or agricultural implements by the owner and once the policy was taken for the tractor, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore, the claim petition be allowed by fixing the joint liability on the owner and insurer of the vehicle. It is argued that contract if any entered into between the owner and the insurer and if either party violates the conditions, the victim of the accidents should not suffer and therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be quashed.