Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 266
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN
United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore
Versus
Syed Mahaboob & Another
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2814 of 2005 (WC)
Decided On : 03-03-2010
For the Appellant:P.B. Raju, Advocate.
Headnote:WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - Sections 2(1)(n) & 30(1): [V. Jagannathan.J] Bodily injury suffered by owner of insured vehicle involved in accident - Provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was invoked to claim compensation - Held, Since claimant is not a "workman" as defined in Act, claim is not tenable. Award passed by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, directing insurer to pay compensation is without jurisdiction, and, hence set aside.
1. In this appeal, the only short point that arises for consideration is whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore, could have allowed the claim application filed by the very owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the claimant before the Commissioner was none other than respondent 1 herein, who is also the insured as could be seen from the Insurance Policy that was produced before the Commissioner, As such, the question of allowing the claim application of a person, who was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 does not arise.
3. The above submission finds acceptance by the Court in view of the policy produced indicating that respondent 1 himself was the owner of the vehicle in question that met with the accident. The respondents have remained absent despite service.
4. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.
