MALLAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 4 S.C.R. 804 MALLAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS. v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1391 of 2009) APRIL 07, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, S.A. BOBDE AND N. V. RAMANA, JJ.] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s. 157 - Deemed transfer of insurance policy - Death of driver of tractor in an accident - Ownership of tractor transferred during validity of insurance policy and accident took place during said period - Held: Deceased workman was D in the course of employment of second respondent in whose name ownership of vehicle stood transferred and said vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy -- High Court ought not have simply brushed aside the decision of Commissioner fastening joint liability on Insurance Company, E in the light of deeming provision contained in s. 157 (1). The instant appeal arose out of the claim-application filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner by the dependants of a driver who, while in the employment of respondent no. 2, died as a result of over F turn of the tractor he was driving. The Commissioner allowed the claim petition. However, the High Court held that the original owner of the tractor was one "G", and excluded the liability of respondent no.1-lnsurance Company on the ground that the contention of deemed G transfer of the insurance policy in favour of respondent no. 2 by virtue of s. 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not urged before the Commissioner. Allowing the appeal, the Court H 804 MALLAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS. v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. HELD: 805 From the finding recorded by the Commissioner, it can be discerned that on the date of accident, the ownership of the tractor stood transferred to respondent A no. 2. Besides, the 'Schedule of Premium' shows that an B amount of Rs. 15/- has been paid as premium "for LL. to persons employed in connection with the operation and/ or loading of vehicle (IMT 19)". Thus, this Court is of the considered view that as on the date of accident the deceased workman was in the course of employment of second respondent in whose name the ownership of the C vehicle stood transferred and the said vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy, the High Court ought not have simply brushed aside the decision of the Commissioner fastening joint liability on the Insurance Company in the light of the deeming provision contained D ins. 157 (1)of the M.V. Act. The judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. [para 14, 15 and 16] [810-C-G] G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1999 (2) E SCR 476 = (1999) 3 SCC 754 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1999 (2) SCR 476 referred to para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1391 of 2009. From the Judgment and order dated 10.08.2005 of the High Court of Karnataka Bangalore in MFA No. 3842 of 2003 0f'/CA). V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F G H 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 10th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 3842 of 2003 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1-National Insurance B Company discharging it from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants- Appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that on 3rd April, 1997 at about 1.00 p.m., when Honniah @ C Dodda Thimmaiah was returning from the field driving a tractor with the sand load on the trailor, the tractor overturned and Honnaih @ Dodda Thimmaiah died owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. Appellants herein are the claimants- legal representatives of the deceased Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah. The tractor involved in the accident had the D registration number KA 18/717-718 and the tractor was originally registered in the name of one Gangadhara (Respondent No. 3) and the s::im~ was insured w!th the Respondent No. 1 while the deceased was employed as a E driver with the Respondent No. 2-Jeeva Rathna Setty. 3. On 4th September, 1997, the legal representatives of the deceased, filed an application before the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Chickmagalur (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") claiming compensati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.
Lex