Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri Hanumantappa on 6 July, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.20815 OF 2009 (W.C)
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580020
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV.,)
AND
1. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA
S/O. GAGNAPPA LAMANI
R/O: HANUMAPUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. MOORTY S. K.
R/O: JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. M. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADV., FOR
SRI.LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. P. V. GUNJAL, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1)OF THE WORKMEN
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 14.11.2008 PASSED IN WCA/NF No.143/2006 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HAVERI, DISTRICT HAVERI.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the insurer calling in question the
legality and validity of the award dated 14.11.2008 in WCA/NF
No.143/2006 passed by the learned Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri, District
Haveri (for short "the Commissioner").
2. Brief facts are that claim petition proceeded on the
allegation that claimant was working as a Hamali in lorry bearing
registration No.KA-05/D-4257 owned by Moorty S. K, respondent
No.1, and insured with the appellant herein. On 07.05.2006,
while the claimant was unloading drums from the lorry, the
driver of the lorry in question drove the same in negligent
manner by reversing it and on account of the same, claimant
suffered grievous injuries.
3. Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry, Sri.Moorty S. K.
did not file any written statement before the learned
Commissioner and he remained exparte. Appellant filed a
separate written statement denying all the material averments
made in the claim petition.
4. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as
PW1 and he examined a qualified medical practitioner
Dr.Umanath R Ullal as PW2. Ex.P1 to 8 were also marked. The
appellant examined one of its officials as RW1 and policy of
insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1).
5. Upon consideration of the entire materials, learned
Commissioner has answered the points arising for consideration
in favour of the claimant and as against the appellant and
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,74,040/- with interest thereon
at 12% per annum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company contended that the claimant has stated in the claim
petition that he suffered fracture of both bones of left leg and he
produced the wound certificate, Ex.P3, which also reflects the
same. It was further contended that in Ex.P7, which is a
certificate of assessment of physical disability issued by PW2-
Dr.Umanath R Ullal, the fracture and deformity noticed were on
the middle ½ of the right leg and assessment of 50% disability
of the said limb was made by PW2 and no injury or deformity
was noticed by him on the left leg. He, therefore, submits that
the medical evidence is contradictory and the learned
Commissioner without noticing the said aspect has awarded
compensation and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-
respondent submits that PW2 has committed a mistake in giving
report and therefore, matter may be remanded for fresh
consideration of the disability by the learned Commissioner.
8. I have perused Ex.P3-wound certificate and also
Ex.P7-disability certificate pertaining to the claimant. Both
wound certificate as well as the disability certificate are issued
by the same qualified medical practitioner namely Dr.Umanath R
Ullal. While in the wound certificate this doctor had noticed
fracture in the left leg of the claimant, in Ex.P7-disability
certificate he noted deformity on the right leg of the claimant.
Ex.P3-wound certificate reflects that PW2 had examined the
claimant on 19.05.2006 at 6.30 p.m. Ex.P7-disability certificate
shows that same doctor i.e. PW2 had examined the claimant on
22.02.2007 for the purpose of issuing disability certificate. It is
obvious that PW2 has indulged in malpractice as is obvious from
the contradictory observations made by him in Ex.P3 and Ex.P7.
In any case, it is equally obvious that claimant is the beneficiary
of such malpractice and therefore, he is not entitled to grant of
any compensation. In that view of the matter, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is allowed.
The judgment and award dated
14.11.2008 in WCA/NF No.143/2006 passed by
the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri, is set
aside and claim petition is dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, before this
registry, shall be refunded to the appellant-
insurance company.
Issue direction to the Karnataka Medical
Council to hold an inquiry into the professional
misconduct of Dr.Umanath R Ullal in issuing
two contradictory certificates in respect of
alleged injuries suffered by the claimant and
for the said purpose, registry to enclose along
with copy of this judgment, the copies of Ex.P3
and Ex.P7.
The Karnataka Medical Council, after
holding inquiry, shall submit a copy of the
report to the Additional Registrar General, High
Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench on or
before 31.12.2021.
Put up the case on receipt of such a
report.
In view of disposal of the appeal,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
yan
