Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Suresh S/O Ramulu on 6 July, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
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.21425 OF 2011 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BELLARY
THROUGH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
SUJATA COMPLEX
NEAR OLD BUS STAND, HUBLI
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SURESH S/O. RAMULU
AGE : MAJOR, EX-CLEANER
R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, BELLARY.
2. SRI. VEERESH GANGAVATI @ VEERESH
S/O. T.VENKATESHALU,
AGE : MAJOR,
OWNER OF 407 VAN NO. KA-34/2497
R/O. C/O. RAMAKANT
PLOT NO.10, NEAR THE HOUSE OF
DR. DANI, SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R.1 HELD SUFFICIENT.
R.2. SERVED.)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.10.2010 PASSED
BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-II, BELLARY, IN WCF.NF.121/2006, ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Co.
calling in question the legality and validity of the award dated
12.10.2010 in WCF NF No.121/2006 by the learned Labour Officer
and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II,
Bellary.
2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation
that the claimant was working as cleaner in 407 Goods
Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/2497 owned by
respondent No.1 - Veeresh Gangavathi @ Veeresh and
insured with the appellant herein. On 26.09.2003 while
claimant was working in the mini goods vehicle as a
cleaner, while unloading milk cans, he suffered injuries on
account of one of the cans falling on him. It is stated in
the claim petition that he had to take treatment for a long
period on account of the grievous injuries suffered by him.
3. The R.C. owner - respondent No.1 entered
appearance and filed his written statement before the
learned Commissioner admitting the employer-employee
relationship between himself and the claimant and further
that the claimant had suffered employment related
injuries. The appellant filed its own separate written
statement denying the material averments in the claim
petition.
4. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as
P.W.1 and examined one Dr.Dinesh Gudi as P.W.2. Exs.P.1
to P.4 were marked. The appellant - Insurance Co.
examined one of its officials as a witness R.W.1 and Exs.
R.2(1) to R.2(4) were marked.
5. Upon hearing and considering the materials placed
on record, learned Commissioner answered the points
arising for consideration in favour of the claimant and
against the appellant - Insurance Co.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Kayakamath appearing for
the appellant seriously contended that the employer-
employee relationship which is a foundational fact in a
proceedings of this nature has not been established by
legal evidence. He further contended that this is a
fraudulent claim supported by created documents and
learned Commissioner has failed to take note of the same
and awarded compensation and, therefore, it is liable to
be set aside.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel and I have
perused the case papers.
8. The claimant in his claim petition has clearly
stated that he was working as cleaner with respondent
No.1 - Veeresh Gangavati @ Veeresh in 407 Goods vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-34/2497 and the accident took
place on 26.09.2003 while unloading milk can from the
goods vehicle and he suffered serious injuries.
Respondent No.1 had filed his written statement before
the learned Commissioner admitting the fact that there
was employer-employee relationship as between him and
the claimant and further that the accident resulting in
injuries to the claimant had happened in the course of and
arising out of the employment. In that view of the
matter, learned Commissioner having recorded his finding
on appreciation of the evidence before him, it is not
possible for this Court to interfere with the same in an
appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Workman's
Compensation Act, 1923. Consequently, I reject the
contention of the learned counsel.
9. The next contention of the learned counsel is that,
claimant had advanced a fraudulent case before the
learned Commissioner and in support of the said
contention, learned counsel Sri. Kayakamath drew my
attention to Ex.R.2(1) - a letter written to the Insurance
Co. by an Advocate on the panel of the appellant -
Insurance Co. regarding the complaint lodged with the
Police. He also drew my attention to other exhibits
marked before the learned Commissioner, namely,
endorsement issued by Cowl Bazaar Police Station and the
complaint lodged with the Director General of Police and
also the policy of insurance issued by the appellant in
favour of respondent No.1 - the R.C. owner. Perusal of
the said documents do not conclusively show that the
entire claim petition is a fraudulent one and the
documents produced by the claimant are created
documents. Learned Commissioner on consideration of
the entire materials before him as final authority on facts
has given his findings and therefore, I am not satisfied
that there is any material to hold that the claim is a
fraudulent one and accordingly, I do not accept the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Hence, I pass the following :
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Court of
learned Senior Civil Judge, along with records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mgn/-
