Point of law: When the intention of the Legislation was to cover compulsorily ail the risk arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle and that the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of the insured subject to Section 147(l)(b), cooiies or employees are compulsorily covered.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insured challenging the judgment and award dated 24.02.2016, passed in E.C.A.No.80 of 2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees compensation, Hassan (‘the Commissioner’ for short).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants in E.C.A.No.80 of 2014, have contended that the first respondent i.e., the appellant herein is the owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-13-T-8974-8975. The deceased Malleshagowda was working as loader and unloader under respondent No.1 from the last six months and as per the direction of respondent No.1, on 23.02.2011, Malleshagowda and one Santhosh went to the land of respondent No.1 to load sugarcane.

3. It is also their claim that at about 1:30 p.m., near Yagachi Canal, Gundashettihalli Village, Salagame Hobli, the driver of Tractor and Trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the Tractor toppled inside Yagachi canal. Due to the said accident, the said Malleshagowda fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed at the spot.

4. It is also their claim that the death of Malleshagowda is during the course of his employment under respondent No.1. The deceased was aged about 32 years and he was getting salary of Rs.6,000/-per month and Rs.100/- batta per day from respondent No.1 as a loader and unloader. It is also their case that the Tractor and Trailer was insured with the second respondent. Hence, both respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

5. In response to the notice of the claim petition, both respondents have appeared and filed their separate written statement. The first respondent admitted the deceased was an employee and he was working as loader and unloader. He is also admitted the accident and he is the owner of the vehicle but contends that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and says that if there is any liability, the same has to be saddled on respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in the written statement contended that the claim made by the claimants to be proved and contended that the registration certificate of vehicle clearly indicates that the seating capacity in the Tractor is only one i.e., for driver and there is no provision for the person to travel in the tractor including loader other than the driver. It is contended that the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the permit and the liability is only for the driver of Tractor and Trailer. Loader or coolie risk is not covered under the Tractor policy. Respondent No.2 also denied all other claim made in the claim petition. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, they have examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and two other claimants and a Doctor as P.Ws.2 to 4, respectively, since there are three claim petitions and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

7. The Commissioner, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioners in part granting compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- with 12% interest per annum after one month of the accident till realization and directed respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. But in other claim petition, fastened the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the appellant/insured filed this appeal before this Court. The other claim petition of other loader and unloader was dismissed as not proved the disability.

8. The main contention of the appellant/insured before this Court is that the Commissioner has committed an error in exonerating the liability on the Insurance Company. The Commissioner has grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective. The respondent-Insurance Company has collected premium, which covers the occupational accident and so also the loader