Back
Karnataka High Court
Bhimavva - Appellant
Versus
Shankar alias Adya - Respondent
Decided On : 08-14-03
M.F.A. : 2124 of 1993
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 147 and Workmen s Compensation Act - Matter referred to Full Bench.
Question: Whether in a claim by the injured workman, the liability of the Insurer to indemnify the owner is unlimited or limited to the extent of liability under Workmen s Compensation Act?
Answer: The Insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal without determination in terms of Workmen s Compensation Act in respect of an employee covered under the Act policy and the liability is limited as per the provisions of the Workmen s Compensation Act.
[N. K. Jain CJ., T. S. Thakur, V.G. Sabhahit, Mohan Shantanagoudar & H.G. Ramesh] -
Per N. K. Jain, CJ. - The Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also does not dispute that in view of the award, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the award under the Act without any determination under the W.C. Act. However, he contended that the argument that its liability is not limited to amount payable under W.C. Act is not correct, as the liability would not get enlarged or become unlimited unless there is specific contract to accept higher or unlimited liability by accepting additional premium. So also the minority view that liability of Insurance Company will arise only if there is determination of claim under W.C. Act is also not correct. The owner and the driver as the case may be has to pay the amount awarded in excess of the said limit. It is always open to the Insurer to cover wider liability over and above the statutory requirements.
Per T. S. Thakur, J. - The Insurer shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover even in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act without such liability having been first determined or adjudged under the Workmen s Compensation Act. In the case of an insurance policy which conforms to the bare requirements of Section 147 of the Act, the liability of the Insurance Company shall be limited to the liability arising under the Workmen s Compensation Act but any such liability would be enforceable under the Motor Vehicles Act even without an adjudication under the Workmen s Compensation Act. The minority view to the extent it purports to make a prior adjudication of the liability under the Workmen s Compensation Act essential for enforcement of the liability is not supported by either the provisions of the Act or any rule of interpretation.
Cases Referred: AIR 2002 SC 651; AIR 2003 SC 607; AIR 2003 SC 1009; AIR 1976 SC 1377; AIR 1989 SC 1194; 1999 AIR SCW 4337; AIR 1995 SC 1113; AIR 1977 SC 1735.
Overruled: ILR 1999 Kar. 2725.
Liability of the insurer
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 147 and Workmen s Compensation Act - Matter referred to Full Bench.
Question: Whether in a claim by the injured workman, the liability of the Insurer to indemnify the owner is unlimited or limited to the extent of liability under Workmen s Compensation Act?
Answer: The Insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal without determination in terms of Workmen s Compensation Act in respect of an employee covered under the Act policy and the liability is limited as per the provisions of the Workmen s Compensation Act.
[N. K. Jain CJ., T. S. Thakur, V.G. Sabhahit, Mohan Shantanagoudar & H.G. Ramesh] -
Per N. K. Jain, CJ. - The Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also does not dispute that in view of the award, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the award under the Act without any determination under the W.C. Act. However, he contended that the argument that its liability is not limited to amount payable under W.C. Act is not correct, as the liability would not get enlarged or become unlimited unless there is specific contract to accept higher or unlimited liability by accepting additional premium. So also the minority view that liability of Insurance Company will arise only if there is determination of claim under W.C. Act is also not correct. The owner and the driver as the case may be has to pay the amount awarded in excess of the said limit. It is always open to the Insurer to cover wider liability over and above the statutory requirements.
Per T. S. Thakur, J. - The Insurer shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover even in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act without such liability having been first determined or adjudged under the Workmen s Compensation Act. In the case of an insurance policy which conforms to the bare requirements of Section 147 of the Act, the liability of the Insurance Company shall be limited to the liability arising under the Workmen s Compensation Act but any such liability would be enforceable under the Motor Vehicles Act even without an adjudication under the Workmen s Compensation Act. The minority view to the extent it purports to make a prior adjudication of the liability under the Workmen s Compensation Act essential for enforcement of the liability is not supported by either the provisions of the Act or any rule of interpretation.
Cases Referred: AIR 2002 SC 651; AIR 2003 SC 607; AIR 2003 SC 1009; AIR 1976 SC 1377; AIR 1989 SC 1194; 1999 AIR SCW 4337; AIR 1995 SC 1113; AIR 1977 SC 1735.
Overruled: ILR 1999 Kar. 2725.
( 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.
( 4 ) THE Division Bench felt that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. M. Jaya, AIR 2002 SC 651, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, AIR 2003 SC 607 and in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy konda Reddy, AIR 2003 SC 1009, the decision in Noorullas case may not be good law and held that it would be appropriate if the matter is referred to a
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
