IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

MFA NO.102059 OF 2014 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

ENKAY COMPLEX,

HUBLI.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. NAGARAJ BASAPPA KORI

AGE :30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER

R/O. MADLUR VILLAGE

TQ. HIREKERUR

DIST. HAVERI.

2. PRABAPPA V.MUGADI

AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS

R/O. MADLUR VILLAGE

TQ. HIREKERUR

DIST. HAVERI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.

NOTICE TO R.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S

COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY

BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD

PASSED BY THE WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, HAVERI

2

IN WCA NF.90/2012 ON 16.07.2013 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF

Rs.1,90,297/- TOGETHER WITH COTS AND INTEREST.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the Insurance Co. calling in question the

validity of the award dated 16.07.2013 in WCA NF No.90/2012

passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haveri.

2. Brief facts are that, the claimant Nagaraj was

working as a Driver of JCB No. KA-27-M4427 owned by

respondent No.1 – P.V.Mugadi and insured with the

appellant herein. It is stated that on 08.03.2012 while the

claimant was driving the said JCB, it met with an accident

resulting in grievous injuries to him.

3. In the claim proceedings, respondent No.1 –owner

of the JCB had entered appearance and filed his written

statement admitting the employer-employee relationship

and also the fact that injuries suffered by the claimant

was employment related one.

3

4. The appellant – Insurance Co. filed its separate

written statement denying the material averments made

in the claim petition.

5. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as

P.W.1 and a qualified medical practitioner – Dr.Ullal as

P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. The appellant –

Insurnace Co. examined one witness as R.W.1 and policy

of insurance was marked as Ex.R.2(1).

6. Upon

consideration

of

the

entire

materials

produced, learned Commissioner answered all the points

for consideration in favour of the claimant and against the

appellant herein and he awarded a compensation of

Rs.1,90,297/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a.

7. The only substantial question of law canvassed

before me by the learned counsel for the appellant –

Insurance Co. Sri. Arani is that the claimant was not in

possession of valid and effective driving licence and

therefore, there is breach of the material terms of the

4

policy and accordingly, appellant is not liable to reimburse

the compensation and this appeal is liable to be allowed.

In support of this contention, he draws my attention to

Section 10(2)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

submits that the driving licence of the claimant was not

bearing an endorsement under Section 10(2)(j) and

therefore he was not authorized to drive the JCB.

8. Learned counsel Sri. Sahukar per contra submits

that this case is covered by two decisions of this Court,

namely : (i) MFA CROB 200063/2014 (MV) c.w. MFA

No.31287/2012 disposed of on 16.04.2019 and (ii) MFA

No.6789/2010 disposed of on 09.11.2020 and therefore

the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

not at all sustainable.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by both sides and I have perused the

case papers.

5

10.

It is not in dispute that the claimant was having

a valid and effective driving licence to drive a heavy

goods vehicle as well as light motor vehicle. The

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, the

JCB which the claimant was driving was