Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager, vs Smt. Lata, on 22 July, 2021

Author: P.Krishna Bhat

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         DHARWAD BENCH

               DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021

                             BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                    MFA NO. 21680 OF 2010 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BELGAUM THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,2-B UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
P.KALAINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
                                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT.LATHA,
       W/O. YALLAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR,
       AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O. HAL JANJAWAD, TAL: KHANAPUR,
       DIST: BELGAUM.

2.     KUMARI.RAGHAVENI,
       D/O. YALLAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR,
       AGE: 7 YEARS,
       R/O. HAL JANJAWAD, TAL: KHANAPUR,
       DIST: BELGAUM.

3.     KUMAR.RAGHAVENDRA,
       S/O.YALLAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR,
       AGE: 5 YEARS,
       R/O. HAL JANJAWAD, TAL: KHANAPUR,
       DIST: BELGAUM.
                               2


4.   KUMAR.RAGHAVENDRA,
     S/O.YALLAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR,
     AGE: 2 YEARS,
     R/O. HAL JANJAWAD, TAL: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

5.   SHRI.RAYAPPA,
     S/O.JINNAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR,
     AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O. HAL JANJAWAD, TAL: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

6.   SMT.MALLAWWA,
     W/O.RAYAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR,
     AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. HAL JANJAWAD, TAL: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

7.   SHRI.SANJAY KALLAPPA HALGEKAR,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O. HALASHI, TAL:KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6
    NOTICE TO R5 AND R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WC ACT, 1923
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.11.2009 PASSED IN
KAPAKA/SR.17/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION -II,
BELGAUM AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,17,685/- FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        3


                                JUDGMENT

This is an appeal at the instance of insurer calling in question

the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated

26.11.2009 in WC.SR No.17/2009 passed by Labour Officer and

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division-II, Belgaum

(for short 'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts are that deceased-Yellappa

Huchhannavar, was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing

registration No.MEH/5314 owned by respondent No.1-

Sanjay Kallappa Halgekar and insured with the appellant.

It is the case of the claimants that on 04.09.2008, as per

the directions of respondent No.1, deceased-Yellappa

Huchhannavar was working in the lorry and due to the

breakdown of the above lorry, he went on a motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-22-EA-766 to bring the

mechanic and the said motorcycle met with an accident

and Yellappa Huchhannavar died on the spot. It is the

further case of the claimants that in respect of the

accident resulting in the death of the deceased, a case in

crime No.974/2008 was registered by Nandgad Police

Station.

3. Respondent No.1- Sanjay Kallappa Halgekar, has

filed written statement admitting the employer-employee

relationship and also the accident.

4. Appellant filed a detailed and separate written

statement denying the material averments made in the

claim petition.

5. During the enquiry, claimant No.6-Mallavva,

W/o. Rayappa Huchhannavar examined herself as CW1 and

also examined one Narayana Kallappa Bekhane-driver of

the said vehicle as PW2. Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. The

appellant-Insurance Company did not examine any

witnesses but got marked insurance policy as Ex.R2(1).

6. On appreciation of the material produced before

him and evidence let in, the learned Commissioner

answered the points arising for consideration in favour of

the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,685/-

with 12% interest thereon.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company strenuously contended before me that there is no

causal connection between the accident resulting in death

and the employment and he specifically contended that

accident resulting in the death of the deceased had taken

place while he was on a personal work when proceeding to

the house of his elder sister. He, therefore, submits that

absolutely there is no connection between the employment

and the death in question. He also submitted that the

deceased was not at all working as cleaner in the lorry in

question. He, therefore, submits that direction in the

award passed by the learned Commissioner to the extent

of fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance

Company to reimburse the compensation amount is illegal

and hence, liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants contended that the material produced before the

learned Commissioner clearly shows that deceased was

working as cleaner in the truck bearing registration

No.MEH-5314, insured with the appellant herein and since

the vehicle was broke down, the deceased as per the

instructions of respondent No.1- Sanjay Kallappa Halgekar

proceeded on a motorcycle to bring a mechanic for

repairing the lorry and at that time, he met with an

accident and he died and learned Commissioner having

satisfied himself from the material produced before him

about the employment related accident, has recorded a

finding and the same is not liable to be set aside in an

appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employee's

Compensation Act, 1923. It is further contended that

respondent No.1 himself has admitted that the deceased

was working as cleaner in the lorry in question and he died

in an employment related accident. It is therefore,

submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and same is

liable to be dismissed.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on either side and also perused the

records.

10. It is no doubt asserted in the claim petition that

deceased -Yellappa Huchhannavar was working as cleaner

in a lorry bearing registration No.MEH/5314 which was

insured with the appellant herein and on 04.09.2008, while

deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle, in order to

fetch a mechanic for repairing the lorry in question which

broke down, he met with an accident and died at the spot.

Respondent No.1 also supported the case of the claimants

by filing the written statement. The said aspect of the

matter is required to be appreciated with reference to the

submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant

that respondent No.1 has colluded with the claimants and

according to the learned counsel, same is demonstrated by

what has been stated in the complaint itself immediately

after the deceased died in a motorcycle accident.

11. Ex.P2 is the complaint based on which crime No.

120/2008 was registered by Nandgad Police with regard to

the accident resulting in death of the deceased. The

complainant -Pundalik Hulikatti has stated that deceased

Yellappa Huchhannavar had left his house on 04.09.2008

saying that he would proceed to the house of his elder

sister and for the said purpose he has borrowed the

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EA-766 from his

friend and while he was so proceeding, he met with an

accident and died. Police have filed a charge-sheet after

investigation. As per the narration in the complaint, this

complainant is the brother-in-law of the deceased.

12. Learned commissioner has not adverted to this

very material piece of evidence and recorded a finding that

the death had taken place in an accident which was related

to his employment. In that view of the matter, said finding

given by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be

based on evidence and therefore, it is perverse. Under the

said circumstances, learned Commissioner was in error in

fastening the liability to reimburse the compensation on

the appellant-Insurance Company as there is no causal

connection between the employment and the accident

which resulted in the death of the deceased. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

a) The above appeal is allowed in part;

b) The impugned judgment and award dated

26.11.2009 passed in WC.SR. No.17/2009 by the

Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation

Commissioner, Sub Division-II, Belgaum is set aside to

the extent it directed the appellant-Insurance Company

to reimburse the compensation with the interest there

on is concerned.