Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, vs Yerriswamy S/O Bhimalingappa, on 21 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.21142 OF 2013 (W.C)
C/W
MFA NO.21143 OF 2013 AND MFA NO.21144 OF 2013
IN MFA NO.21142 OF 2013
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BELLARY.
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
STATION ROAD, HUBLI.
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV.,)
AND
1. SRI VALI S/O BABU,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER,
R/O: KUDITHINI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
2. SRI. B. NAGARAJ S/O REVANASIDDAGOUDA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MINCHERI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
(OWNER OF THE LORRY NO: KA-34/C-2349)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADV., FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE SERVED)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DTD:06.12.2012 PASSED IN WC. NF. NO.409/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY DISTRICT
BELLARY.
IN MFA NO.21143 OF 2013
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BELLARY.
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
STATION ROAD, HUBLI.
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV.,)
AND
1. SRI. YERRISWAMY S/O BHIMALINGAPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: LOADER,
R/O: KUDITHINI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
2. SRI. B. NAGARAJ S/O REVANASIDDAGOUDA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MINCHERI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
(OWNER OF THE LORRY NO: KA-34/C-2349)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADV., FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DTD:06.12.2012 PASSED IN WC. NF. NO.410/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY DISTRICT
BELLARY.
3
IN MFA NO.21144 OF 2013
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BELLARY.
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
STATION ROAD, HUBLI.
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV.,)
AND
1. SRI. VENKATESH S/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: LOADER,
R/O: KUDITHINI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
2. SRI. B.NAGARAJ S/O REVANASIDDAGOUDA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MINCHERI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
(OWNER OF THE LORRY NO: KA-34/C-2349)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADV., FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DTD:06.12.2012 PASSED IN WC.NF.NO.411/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY DISTRICT
BELLARY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
COMMON JUDGMENT
These are appeals filed by the insurance company calling
in question the legality of the judgment and award dated
06.12.2012 in W.C.N.F.Nos.409/2007, 410/2007 and 411/2007
passed by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bellary (for short "the
Commissioner")
2. Brief facts are that the claimants namely, Srivali,
Yerriswamy and Venkatesh were stated to be working as cleaner
and loaders, respectively, in truck bearing registration No.KA-
34/C-2349 owned by respondent-B.Nagaraj and insured with the
appellant herein. It is stated that one Mehaboob Pasha was the
driver of the said lorry. On 25.05.2007, as per the instructions of
the owner of the lorry, B. Nagaraj, these claimants were
proceeding in the said lorry, which was loaded with sand and at
about 8.30 p.m. while the lorry in question was proceeding near
Mundargi Industrial Area, it dashed against a parked lorry
bearing registration No.AP-07/0347 and thereafter it capsized
5
and fell into a canal resulting in injuries to these claimants and
the driver-Mehaboob Pasha.
3. In response to the claim petitions, the respondent-
owner of the lorry, B. Nagaraj, filed written statement admitting
that these claimants and the driver Mehaboob Pasha were
working in the said lorry and there was employer and employee
relationship between himself and the claimants.
4. During the enquiry, these claimants and the driver-
Mehaboob Pasha examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and
they also examined a qualified medical practitioner as a witness.
Ex.P.1 to 17 were also marked. The appellant-insurance
company examined one of its officials as R.W.1 and policy of
insurance and another document were also marked.
5. Upon consideration of the entire materials, the
learned Commissioner answered all the points arising for
consideration in favour of the claimants and awarded
compensation of Rs.1,15,473/- in favour of the claimant-Srivali,
Rs.91,102/- in favour of the claimant-Yerriswami and
6
Rs.1,09,190/- in favour of the claimant-Venkatesh with interest
at 12% thereon.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer
vehemently contended that the claimants in these appeals and
also the driver of the vehicle, Mehaboob Pasha, had not suffered
any injuries in the accident and the wound certificates produced
are got-up documents. He submitted that as per the police
complaint, in Ex.P.1, there is a clear statement to the effect that
nobody had suffered any injury in the accident. He therefore
submitted that the awards passed by the learned Commissioner
are liable to be set aside.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made and also the certified copy of the records
made available by the learned counsel for my perusal.
8. Respondent-B.Nagaraj, who is the owner of the
truck, in his written statement admitted that claimants had
suffered injuries in the accident, which had taken place in the
course of and arising from the employment and also the
employer and employee relationship. Further, even though in
7
Ex.P.1-complaint lodged by the driver of the parked lorry, there
is a mention that nobody was injured in the accident, charge-
sheet/Ex.P.2 filed by the police clearly shows that these
claimants had suffered injuries. Further, in support of their case,
they have produced wound certificates issued by the PHC,
Kudithini wherein the injuries suffered by them are clearly
reflected. Further, they have examined a qualified medical
practitioner as a witness to speak about the injuries and loss in
earning capacity suffered by them on account of such injuries.
On consideration of the same, learned Commissioner has
recorded a finding that they had suffered injuries, which is on
account of their employment under respondent-B.Nagaraj,
whose lorry was insured with the appellant. Therefore, I do not
find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the
appellant in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to
be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, before the
registry, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional
Senior Civil Judge Court, forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeals,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
yan
