Bajaj Alliance General Insurance ... vs Parvatevva W/O Late Yellappa ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2647 Kant

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         DHARWAD BENCH

                DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2021

                             BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                    MFA NO.20670 OF 2009 (WC)


BETWEEN:

BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DESAI CROSS, HUBLI,
REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND ASST.
MANAGER, LEGAL.
                                                       ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     PARVATEVVA W/O LATE YELLAPPA SHIMANNAVAR
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

2.     SOMALINGA S/O LATE YELLAPPA SHIMANNAVAR
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

3.     MAHANTESHA S/O LATE YELLAPPA SHIMANNAVAR,
       AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

4.     SAVAKKA D/O LATE YELLAPPA SHIMANNAVAR
       AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

5.     GAYATHRI D/O LATE YELLAPPA SHIMANNAVAR
       AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

6.      RAJA S/O LATE YELLAPPA SHIMANNAVAR
       AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
                                  2


R3 TO R6 BEING MINORS REP. BY R1 MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND.

7.   HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LOCHAPPA SHAMANNAVAR
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

8.   SMT. CHANNABASAVVA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

     ALL ARE R/O JUMJUNA BAIL,
     KALAGHATAGI.

9.   LAKSHMANA T CHANGOJI
     MAJOR, R/O JUMJUNA BAIL,
     KALAGHATAGI.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.R.HEGDE AND SRI. P.K. SANNINGAMMANAVAR, ADVS. FOR R1
TO R3) (R4 TO R6 MINORS REP BY R1)
(SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. FOR R7)
(R8 & R9 ARE SERVED)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923    PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
CASE NO.WCA/F 41/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LABOR OFFICER
AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-
II, HUBLI AND EXAMINE THE SAME AND ON BEING SATISFIED OF THE
ILLEGALITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 28.11.2008 PASSED
THEREIN, THE SAME MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THE ABOVE APEPAL BE
ALLOWED AND COSTS AND SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS IS
DEEMED FIT AND PROPER BE GRANTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      3


                                 JUDGMENT

This is an insurer's appeal calling in question the

legality of the award dated 28.11.2008 passed in WCA/F

No.41/2007 by the learned Labour Officer and

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dharwad

District, Sub-division-II, Hubli (for short, 'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts are that one Yellappa Shimannavar was

working as a coolie in Goods Rickshaw bearing registration

No.KA-25/B-2998 owned by the respondent

No.1/Lakshman T Changoji and insured with the present

appellant. On 13.6.2006, as per the instruction of

respondent No.1, deceased Yellappa proceeded in the said

Goods Rickshaw along with the goods and on account of

rash and negligent driving of driver of the said rickshaw,

he fell down from the same and he died in the spot due to

head injury.

3. Respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle in question

appeared before the learned Commissioner and filed

written statement admitting the employer-employee

relationship and that death of the deceased was due to

employment related injuries. The appellant filed its

separate and detailed written statement denying the

material averments made in the claim petition.

4. During the enquiry, claimant No.1 examined

herself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The

appellant/insurer examined one of its officials as witness

and Exs.R1 to R11 were marked.

5. After consideration of the materials placed on

record, the learned Commissioner answered all the points

arising for consideration in favour of the claimants and

against the appellant/insurer.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer

vehemently contended that the finding of the learned

Commissioner on the question of employer-employee

relationship is erroneous and based on no evidence and

therefore, it is liable to be set-aside by allowing the

appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants,

per contra, submitted that the evidence placed on record

clearly shows that the employer-employee relationship

between respondent No.1 and the deceased has been

established and since the finding of fact has been

recorded by the learned Commissioner based on evidence,

the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court

in this appeal.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions of learned counsel on either side and perused

the records.

9. The claimants have clearly asserted in their claim

petition that the deceased Yellappa was working as a

Coolie/Hamali in the Goods Auto-rickshaw belonging to

respondent No.1 and insured with the present appellant.

Respondent No.1 had filed written statement before the

learned Commissioner clearly admitting the employer-

employee relationship between himself and the deceased.

The evidence placed before the learned Commissioner also

supports the contention that the deceased was employed

as Hamali by respondent No.1 to work in his goods auto.

Under such circumstances, finding of fact recorded by the

learned Commissioner is fully supported by the evidence

and the same is not liable to be interfered with in this

appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees'

Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, there is no merit in

this appeal and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The above appeal is dismissed.

b) The amount in deposit before this Court,

if any, shall be transmitted to the

jurisdictional Court of learned Senior

Civil Judge along with the records

forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR