National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs A. Subramanyam Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 2180 Kant

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

             DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

                            BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                  MFA NO. 24623 OF 2012 (WC)

BETWEEN
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM,
NOW REP: BY ITS DY. MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA,
OPP: SBI ZONAL OFFICE, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
                                                    ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH S GUNDI, ADV.,)

AND

1.    SHRI. A. SUBRAMANYAM RAO,
      AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
      R/O. C/O. N. B. YADAL,
      C. C. B. NO. 104, GANGA NIVAS,
      1ST CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM

2.    SHRI. VARINDRA S. KAMAT,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
      R/O. "KAMAT TRANSPORTS",
      H.NO. 2, ADHYAPAK NAGAR,
      OPP: POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
      NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADV., FOR R1)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT    AND  AWARD    DATED    21.05.2012  PASSED  IN
W.C.NO.51/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
                                         2


COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS' COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-2,
BELGAUM AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,05,620/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ORDER.

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

                                  JUDGMENT

This is a appeal by the insurer-National Insurance

Company Limited calling in question the legality and

validity of the award dated 21.05.2012 passed in

W.C.No.51/2008 by the Labour Officer and

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-

Division-II, Belagavi (for short "the Commissioner")

awarding compensation of Rs.2,05,620/- with interest

thereon at 12% per annum.

2. The brief facts are that the claimant-A

Subramanyamrao was working as vehicle maintenance

and bill collector under respondent No.1-Varindra S

Kamat before the learned Commissioner, who is owner

of Kamat Transport. The further averment in the claim

petition is that on 17.04.2006 as per the direction of

his employer, claimant had gone in the motorcycle of

respondent No.1 bearing registration No.KA-25/X-9350

in order to deliver transport bills to Tata Metalic

Company Limited and while he was returning to Hubli

on Auranda-Redi road, within the limits of Vengurla

Police Station, at about 2.00 p.m., a goods tempo came

in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the

motorcycle causing grievous injuries to him.

3. During the enquiry before the learned

Commissioner, claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and

examined one Orthopedic Surgeon Dr.S.R.Angadi as

P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 were marked. Appellant-

insurance Company examined Sri.Tukaram Arjun Jadhav

as R.W.1 and examined one of its officials Sri.

Raghuveer as R.W.2 and got marked the insurance

policy and authorization letter as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

4. Upon consideration of the entire materials

produced, the learned Commissioner recorded a finding

that there was employer and employee relationship

between respondent No.2 and respondent

No.1(claimant) herein and the accident resulting in

injury which caused loss in the earning capacity of the

claimant took place arising out of and in the course of

employment and further that claimant was aged 42

years at the time of the accident and he was earning

Rs.3,200/- per month. Learned Commissioner also came

to the conclusion that the claimant had suffered loss of

earning capacity to the extent of 60%.

5. Upon consideration of records, I am satisfied

that these are findings of facts recorded by the learned

Commissioner, which is supported by the evidence

presented before him. However, the learned counsel for

the appellant-insurance company has vehemently

contended before me that since the motorcycle in

question belonged to respondent No.2 herein and

respondent No.1 claimant was riding the same and

since the motorcycle is a private vehicle, the appellant-

insurance company is not liable to reimburse the

compensation amount and the finding of the learned

Commissioner is liable to be set aside. He further

submitted that the claimant-respondent No.1 herein is

not a workman within the meaning of the Employees'

Compensation Act, 1923, as he was working as a

manager cum clerk. He also contended that the

additional premium was not paid on the policy for

covering the risk of employee.

6. I do not find any merit in the said contention

urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned

Commissioner, based on evidence, has come to the

conclusion that respondent No.1-claimant herein was in

charge of vehicle maintenance and further he was

working as a bill collector and therefore, it is

impossible for me to disagree with the finding of the

learned Commissioner which is recorded on

consideration of the evidence placed before him.

Insofar as other contentions urged before me by the

learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, in his

elaborate order, the learned Commissioner, after

referring to two decisions namely 2009 ACJ 509

rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and 2009

ACJ 1420 rendered by the Division Bench of Kerala High

Court has come to the conclusion that the claimant is a

workman within the meaning of Employees'

Compensation Act, 1923 and therefore, the appellant is

liable to reimburse the compensation amount. The

findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are

upon detailed consideration of the entire evidence and

they being findings of facts, there are no grounds to

interfere with the same. As already observed by me, I

do not find any substantial question of law arising for

consideration in this appeal and this appeal is liable to

be dismissed. However, it is required to be noticed tha t

the learned Commissioner has committed an error of

law in awarding interest w.e.f. 30 days from the date of

passing of the award namely 21.05.2012. The

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 as well as catena

of decisions rendered on the same by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, it make very clear that the right to

receive the compensation for loss in the earning

capacity suffered by employee arising out of the injury

caused in the course of and arising out of the

employment arises immediately after the accident

resulting in injury takes place. In that view of the

matter and as already repeatedly held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, the learned Commissioner was

duty bound to award the interest w.e.f. 30 days from

the date of the accident. In the circumstances, the

claimant is entitled to receive interest w.e.f. 30 days

from the date of the accident on the quantum of

compensation namely Rs.2,05,620/-. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

While maintaining the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, it is directed that the claimant is entitled to award of interest w.e.f. 30 days

from the date of the accident namely 17.04.2006 at 12% per annum till the date of realization.

The amount in deposit, if any, before the registry shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Senior Civil Court, forthwith.

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

Sd/-

JUDGE

yan