IMPORTANT POINT
As per amendment 28.3.2001, transport vehicle substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle, light motor vehicle continued in Forms of licence to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods vehicle.

B. Manohar, J.—The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 31.7.2007 made in No. WCA-F/41/2007 passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the WCC’).

2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition before the WCC contending that they are the legal representatives of deceased Basavaraj Thotad, who was working as a driver in a lorry bearing registration No. KA-26/4292 belonging to the 5th respondent. On 23.4.2006, as per the instructions of the owner, after loading granite stones at Ilkal while proceeding towards Bangalore, the said vehicle met with an accident on NH-13 and Basavaraj Thotad succumbed to injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and getting a salary of Rs.5,000 per month and batta of Rs.100 per day. The claimants are dependents of the deceased. The accident occurred during the course and arising out of the employment. In view of the death of the bread earner, the family of the deceased became destitute and sought for compensation of Rs.14,00,000.

3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the WCC, the owner of the vehicle entered appearance and filed statement of objections admitting the occurrence of the accident on 23.4.2006 and also relationship of master and servant and contended that he was paying salary of Rs.3,000 p.m. and batta of Rs.100 per day. Since the vehicle is covered by insurance policy, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the owner of the vehicle.

4. The appellant Insurance Company filed statement of objections to the claim petition contending that, the deceased was not working as a driver in the offending lorry. He was travelling as an unauthorised passenger in the said goods vehicle. There is no relationship of master and servant between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. Further, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was not holding effective driving licence to drive the goods vehicle, no document has been produced to show that he was getting income of Rs.4,000 p.m. and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. The first claimant got examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1to P10. The Insurance Company examined Sri M.N. Nagaraj Rao as DW 1 and got marked the insurance policy of the said vehicle as Ex. R2(1).

6. The WCC, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, taking into consideration MVI report, spot mahazar and copy of FIR, held that due to the accident, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-26/4292 died on 23.4.2006 during the course and out of employment and the claimants are the dependants of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for compensation. The WCC, taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000 p.m. and deducting 50% thereof, taking into consideration age of the deceased as 37 years on the basis of the driving licence, applying the relevant factor of 192.14 awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,280 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Since the vehicle is covered by the insurance policy and the deceased was having effective driving licence as on the date of accident, and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1531: (2004)3 SCC 297: [2004] 1 Supreme 243 ; 2004 SCC (Cri.) 733: 2004 AIR SCW 663 and Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 1999 SC 3181: (1999)6 SCC 620: [1999] 9 Supreme 478 ; 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1170: 1999 CTJ 655 (SC) fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and order fastening the liability on the appellant to compensate the claimants has filed this appeal.

7. Sri S.K. Kayakamath