Mallawwa W/O. Raju Hegannavar vs Laxman S/O. Dadu Magadum
2021 Latest Caselaw 2689 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.24246 OF 2012 (WC)

BETWEEN
1.    SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. RAJU HEGANNAVAR
      AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
      R/O. SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKKODI,
      DIST: BELGAUM.

2.    KUMAR SUNIL S/O. RAJA HEGANNAVAR
      AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
      MINOR, HENCE REPRESENTED BY HIS
      NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
      SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. RAJU HEGANNAVAR
      R/O. SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKKODI
      DIST: BELGAUM

3.    KUMARI AVVAKKA D/O. RAJU HEGANNAVAR
      AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
      MINOR, HENCE REPRESENTED BY HER
      NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
      SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. RAJU HEGANNAVAR
      R/O. SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKKODI
      DIST: BELGAUM
                                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. A. R. ANGADI, ADV., FOR SRI. MAHESH B PATIL, ADV.,
AND SRI. ASHOK NAIK ADV.,)

AND
1.    SHRI. LAXMAN S/O. DADU MAGADUM
      AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK
      NO.MH-09/BC-5188,
                                    2


     R/O. P-9/598, RAJRAJESHWARI NAGAR,
     INCHALKARANJI, TQ: HAT KANAGALA,
     DIST: KOLHAPUR.

2.   THE MANAGER,
     SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     ITS BRANCH AT: BELGAUM
                                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADV., FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1)(A) OF THE W.C.ACT 1923,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.05.2012, PASSED
IN WCA NO.129/2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1,
BELGAUM,    PARTLY       ALLOWING       THE   CLAIM     PETITION      FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                             JUDGMENT

This is claimants' appeal calling in question the legality of

the award dated 18.05.2012 in WCA No.129/2010 passed by the

learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, Sub Division-I, Belgaum (for short "the

Commissioner").

2. Brief facts are that deceased-Raju Heggannavar was

working as a driver in truck bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-

5188 owned by respondent No.1-Laxman Dadu Magadum and

insured with respondent No.2-Sriram General Insurance

Company Limited. On 29.03.2010, while deceased-Raju

Heggannavar was driving the said truck, it met with an accident

and while he was being shifted to the hospital, he died. A case in

Crime No.83/2010 was registered in connection with the said

accident.

3. Learned Commissioner, upon consideration of the

materials placed before him, has recorded a finding that

employer-employee relationship between respondent No.1 and

the deceased was not established and further that the fact of the

accident resulting in death of the deceased taking place in the

course of and arising out of the employment has not been

proved and on such a finding, he dismissed the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants

contends that the complaint-Ex.P.4, which was lodged on the

same day of the accident, namely, 29.03.2010 states that the

truck belonging to respondent No.1 was driven by deceased-Raju

Heggannavar and it had met with an accident and he died on

account of employment related injury. He submits that learned

Commissioner has entirely gone by the denial of employer-

employee relationship made by respondent No.1 in the written

statement and he has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. It

is the further contention of the leaned counsel that the learned

Commissioner ought to have summoned respondent No.1 for

examination to elicit whether he had employed the deceased as

driver of the truck bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-5188.

5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. S. K.

Kayakmath, appearing for the insurance company. He submits

that learned Commissioner has recorded the finding upon

consideration of materials placed before him and since the

finding of fact recorded by him is based on evidence, such

finding is not liable to be interfered with.

6. Perusal of the records shows that Ex.P4 is the

complaint in connection with the accident in which deceased-

Raju Heggannavar had died. Even though respondent No.1 in his

written statement before the learned Commissioner has denied

the employer-employee relationship, the complaint-Ex.P4 clearly

states that at the time of the accident, deceased was driving the

vehicle in question. Under such circumstances, in the interest of

justice, learned Commissioner ought to have summoned and

examined the respondent No.1-Laxman Dadu Magadum, who is

owner of the vehicle in question to say on oath whether he had

employed the deceased or not for the purpose of driving the

truck in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the

considered opinion that matter is required to be remanded to the

learned Court below for holding proper enquiry with regard to

employer-employee relationship and as to whether the accident

resulting in death of the deceased had taken place in the course

of and arising out of the employment. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The above appeal is allowed.

The judgment and award dated 18.05.2012 in WCA No.129/2010 passed by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-I, Belgaum is set aside

with a direction to the learned Commissioner to hold further enquiry as directed hereinabove and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Registry to return the records to the Court below forthwith.

All contentions are left open.

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

yan