Executive Engineer (Electrical) vs Sri Babu Siddappa Maradi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2686 Kant

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         DHARWAD BENCH

               DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF JULY 2021

                             BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                    MFA NO.6488 OF 2008 (WC)

BETWEEN:

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
O & M DIVISION, HESCOM,
GHATAPRABHA, BELGAUM
                                                ...APPELLANT
 (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR BOLMAL
ASSTS. AND SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     SRI. BABU SIDDAPPA MARADI
       SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

1(a)   KRISHNAVVA W/O BABU MARADI
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O BASAVANAGAR, HUKKERI,
       TQ:HUKKERI, DIST:BELGAUM.

1(b)   TANGEVVA @ PAPPAVVAW W/O MARUTI KAROSHI
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O DEVANKATTI, TQ:RAIBAG,DIST:BELAGAVI.

1(c)   CHANDRAVVA @ SHASHIKALA W/O MALLAPPA GUDAGE
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O INDRANAGAR, CHIKKODI,
       TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

1(d)   APPANNA S/O BABU MARADI
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC:AGRI,
       R/O BASAVANAGAR, HUKKERI,
                                   2


     TQ:HUKKERI, DIST:BELAGAVI.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R1(A-D))

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
6.3.2008   PASSED    BY   THE  COMMISSIONER     FOR   WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM IN WCA S/R NO.73/2006 IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

                            JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the Executive Engineer

(Electrical), HESCOM, Ghataprabha, Belgaum calling in

question the legality of the award dated 6.3.2008 passed

in WCA S/R No.73/2006 by the learned Labour Officer and

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-division-

1, Belgaum (for short, 'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts are that the claimant-Babu Siddappa

Maradi was working as Overseer in the HESCOM and as

part of his duty, he had gone to Bekkari village to collect

bill amount from consumers and at that time, sugar cane

stump caused injury to his left foot heel and

subsequently, it resulted in development of gangrene and

while undergoing treatment for the same, his left leg had

to be amputed below knee.

3. The learned Commissioner after holding enquiry

recorded a finding that the claimant was an employee of

HESCOM and the amputation had become necessary on

account of injury suffered by him in the course of and

arising out of the employment.

4. Challenging the finding of the learned

Commissioner, the learned counsel for the appellant-

HESCOM in support of his appeal contends that the

learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in

holding that the accident resulting in injuries had taken

place in the course of and arising out of the employment.

He submits that the finding recorded by the learned

Commissioner on this aspect is based on no evidence and

it is perverse.

5. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants, on the

other hand, contended that the learned Commissioner has

recorded a finding based on evidence and since he is the

final fact finding authority, such finding is not liable to be

interfered with in an appeal under Section 30(1) of the

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the

learned Commissioner has placed reliance mainly on

Exs.P8 and P9 for arriving at a conclusion that the

appellant/department has admitted the factum of injuries

taking place in the course of and arising out of the

employment. Ex.P8 is the report submitted by Section

Officer-2, HESCOM, Raibag to the effect that the claimant-

Babu Siddapap Maradi had gone for collection of bill

amount to Bekkari village on 18.4.2005, at that time, he

had suffered injury to his left heel. Based on Ex.P8,

recommendation was made under Ex.P9 by Assistant

Executive Engineer (Electrical), HESCOM, Sub-division,

Raibag to clear the medical bill claim of the claimant. The

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that

Ex.P8 is a fraudulent document created by Section Officer

in order to help the respondent/claimant and on account

of the same, departmental proceedings were initiated

against the said Section Officer and subsequently, his

services were terminated. He placed for my perusal

notice dated 19.12.2006 issued to the said Section Officer

by the appellant/department. However, the said aspect of

the matter has not been placed before the learned

Commissioner for his consideration. If the facts asserted

by the learned counsel for the appellant are true, it will

have considerable bearing on the outcome of the petition

namely false claim was sought to be projected before the

learned Commissioner in order to proceed an award by

way of compensation. In that view of the matter, an

opportunity is required to be afforded to the appellant to

produce those documents before the learned

Commissioner. For the said purpose, the matter is

required to be remanded to him. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The above appeal is allowed.

b) The impugned award dated 6.3.2008

passed in WCA S/R No.73/2006 by the

learned Commissioner is set-aside with a

direction to the jurisdictional Court of

learned Senior Civil Judge to take up for

consideration the claim petition and

dispose of the same after affording

opportunities to both side to lead such

further evidence as deemed necessary by

them.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR