MFA 1975/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBAR••G...A DATED THIS THE f 3 W DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE VJAGANNATHAN iflNo.19752C BETWEEN: United. India Insurance Company Limited, Bidar, Through its Regional Oflice At No25, Shankaranamyana Building, M. C Road, Bangalore — 560 001, Represented by its Deputy Manager, Smt. 1CSVaijayanthi. APPELLANT (By Sri Mauveudra Reddy, Adv4 AND: 1. Sri I3akkappa, 5/ o Bheernanna Majkuri, Aged about 43 years, 0cc: Coolie, Z Smt. Shakuntala, W/o Sri Bakkappa Majakoori, Aged about 41 years, 0cc: Housewife Both are residents of Nyavadgeri, Janwada Road, Bidar. MPA 1975/2004 3. Sri Naganath Kishanarao Patil, Mi.jor, 0cc: Snail. ess, Chiketpalli, Taluic: Bodan, Dist Nizambad (AP.) RESPONDENTS (By Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty, Mv for R-1 & 2) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the order dated 14012004, passed in Case NoWCA:CWC:CR:5/2001, on the file of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,86,282/ with interest at 6% p.a. and directing the appellant herein to deposit the same. This appeal is coming on for final hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties in respect of the appeal preferred by thc insurance company calling in question the award of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, fastening the liabffitv on the appellant hi respect of the compensation awarded to the claimants, 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the insurance company is that the jeep in question is a private MFA 1975/2004 jeep insured with the appellant and when the accident occurred on 09.1 L2000, the driver of the jeep died and the insurance company satisfied the award in respect of the claim made in that regard. However, as far as the present claimants are concerned, the Commissioner erred in accepting the contention of the claimants tha..t the deceased was a cleaner in the jeep in question. It is argued that the question of having a cleaner in a private vehicle does not arise and the Commissioner has gone to the extent of obsenring that the deceased also be considered as the driver of the jeep. Another submission made is that the insurance policy produced before the Commissioner indicates that there was no coverage in respect of the cleaner, but only driver of the jeep was covered. As such, the Pa bifity fastened on the appellant can not sustained in law. This submission is sought to be supported by the rulings reported in 2009 ACJ 908 and 2008 AcJ 2705. MPA 1975/2004 -4- 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimants contends that the policy in question did cover the risk of the cleaner and there is no bar lbr the cleaner being there in a private vehicle. He also relied on two decisions in support of his contentions, which are reported in 11(2003) ACt 706 and 1(2003) ACt 545, 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the insurance policy, it is clear that the policy in question does not cover the risk of a cleaner. Consequently, it is also improbable that a private vehicle wifi have a cleaner apart from the driver. The vehicle in question is a Mahindra Jeep, which is a private vehicle and as such the probability of their being a cleaner for the said private vehicle is veiy remote. Secondly, the Commissioner in his order has gone to the extent of observing that the ‘Jeceased could also be the driver of the jeep. When the jeep driver’s case has been satisfied by the insurance company, it does not appeal to anyone’s rational sense MPA 1975/2004 5- that there could be. two drivers to a private jeep 7travelling at the same time. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Commissioner cannot be accepted, as the same is not convinein based on... the material placed before him. The rulings relied upon by! the learned Counsel for the respondent are Inapplicable to the ease on hand. 5. This Court in. the decision reported in 2008 ACJ 2705 has held that the Commissioner could not have treated the cleaner as a driver and in another decision reported in 2009 A 908, it has been teid that where there was no statutory coverage for a cleaner and no contractual liability was undertaken by the insurance company in the policy, the insurance company would not be liable. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The award of the Thmmissione.r in so far as it fastens the liability on the insurance company is set aride. The liabilitY is fastened on the owner of the jeep and it is for MFA 1975/2004 him to satisfSr the same. The amount In deposit shall be refunded to the a liar t4nsuranee company. JUl. GE KK vJJ 13O82OO9 M.F.A.NO. 1975/2OO4(WC) ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO Heard both sides in respect of the clarification sought by the learned counsel for the claimants, It was sought to be submitted that policy in question covers the risk of the cleaner. However, this court has examined the policy and has noted the order that the policy does not cover the risk of a cleaner. Therefore, question of taking a different view of the matter does not arise. Sd! JUGE NSP