The Divisional Manager vs Smt Suvarna W/O Kiran Simpi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2801 Kant

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                             DHARWAD BENCH

               DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                                BEFORE

              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                     MFA NO 21566 OF 2009 (WC)
BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI,BELGAUM
                                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M G GADGOLI, ADV.)

AND

1 . SMT SUVARNA W/O KIRAN SIMPI
OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O MUNAVALLITQ SAUNDATTI

2 . FAROOKH BAIG
AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
B/4 DREAM LAND APARTMENT, FATORDA MARGAO,GOA

3 . RATNAKAR S/O VASUDEV SIMPI
AGE MAJOR, OCC BUSINESS
R/O SHINDOGI TQ SAUNDATTI

4 . CHAYA W/O RATNAKAR SIMPI
AGE MAJOR, OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/O SHINDOGI TQ SAUNDATTI
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
      (BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR R1;
            NOTICE TO R2 SERVED; R3 & 4 DISMISSED)

      THIS MFA FILED U/S.30(1) OF WC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT &
AWARD DTD:14-08-2008, IN WC NO.69/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIV.II,
BELGAUM, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,84,169/- ALONG WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
                                     2



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

                                 JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the insurer calling in

question the award dated 14/08/2008 passed in WCA

No.69/2007 by the learned Labour Officer and

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-division

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

2. Brief facts are that one Kiran Simpi was working

as a coolie in a tanker bearing registration No.GA-02/V-

6761 owned by respondent No.1/Farookh Baig and insured

with appellant herein. It is stated that on 28.04.2006

when Kiran Simpi was working as coolie in the said Tanker

it met with an accident and Kiran Simpi died in the same.

3. In the proceedings before the learned

Commissioner, respondent No.1/Insured filed written

statement admitting employer and employee relationship

and also the fact that the accident had taken place in the

course of and arising out of the employment and

respondent No.2/Insurer contested the proceedings by

filing written statement denying the material averments

made in the claim petition.

4. During the enquiry, Claimant No.1 examined

herself as PW1. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Policy of

insurance was marked as Ex.R.2(1).

5. Upon consideration of the materials produced

and the evidence let in, learned Commissioner answered

all the points for consideration in favour of the claimants

and against the appellant herein and he awarded a

compensation of Rs.2,84,169/- with interest thereon at

12% p.a.

6. Sri. M.G.Gadgoli, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant/insurance company contended that employer

and employee relationship has not been established in this

case and deceased Kiran Simpi was unauthorized

passenger in the tanker and the tanker is not authorized

to carry any coolie. He therefore submits that the finding

recorded by the learned Commissioner is perverse and

therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

7. Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the

claimants, on the other hand, submits that evidence

clearly shows that the deceased was working as coolie in

the tanker owned by respondent No.1 and accident took

place in the course of and arising out of the employment

and therefore, the insurance company is liable to

reimburse the compensation awarded by the learned

Commissioner. Further, he contended that the learned

Commissioner has committed error in awarding interest

not from 30 days from the date of the accident.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on either side and I have perused the

records.

9. The claim petition is filed by the wife of

deceased Kiran Simpi with a plea that the deceased was

working as coolie in tanker bearing registration No.GA-

02/V-6761 owned by respondent No.1/Farookh Baig and

insured with appellant. Respondent No.1 has filed written

statement before the learned Commissioner admitting

employer and employee relationship between himself and

deceased Kiran Simpi. He has also admitted the accident

on 28.04.2006 as alleged in the claim petition. In the

evidence, the wife of the deceased has also spoken about

the deceased working as a coolie under respondent No.1

in tanker bearing registration No.GA-02/V-6761. In the

cross examination of P.W.1, she emphatically denied the

suggestion put on behalf of the appellant/insurance

company that her husband was an unauthorized

passenger. The learned Commissioner having appreciated

the entire evidence placed before him, has recorded a

finding that employer and employee relationship between

respondent No.1 and deceased Kiran Simpi had been

established by evidence and since it is a finding on fact

recorded by the final fact finding authority who is the

learned Commissioner, I am not inclined to interfere with

the same. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and

it is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

10. The Statute is very clear that the compensation

awarded under the Act shall carry interest at 12% P.A.

with effect from 30 days from the date of the accident and

therefore, the claimants are entitled to the same.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i) The above appeal is dismissed.

ii) The claimants are entitled for compensation

awarded by the learned Commissioner with interest at

12% with effect from 30 days from the date of the

accident till the date of realization.

iii) The amount in deposit, if any shall be transmitted

to the concerned jurisdictional tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB/-