Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Ravi S/O. Lakappa Nayak
2021 Latest Caselaw 2320 Kant

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                        DHARWAD BENCH

              DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2021

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                   MFA NO.25280 OF 2012 (WC)
                             C/W
                   MFA NO.25281 OF 2012 (WC)


BETWEEN:

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
LAXMI SHOPPINT COMPLEX, SUBHASH ROAD,
KOPPA TALUKA, DIST:CHIKKAMANGALORE,
NOW REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.
                                            ...COMMON APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE)

IN MFA NO.25280/2012

1.   SRI. RAVI S/O LAKAPPA NAYAK
     AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
     R/O ARAVI TANDE, BAMMIGATTI,
     TALUKA:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD.

2.   M. PRAKASH K. MANJAPPA
     AGE:MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF VEHICLE,
     LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-31/1173,
     R/O MEDAR ONI, NIRASHIHRAJAPURA,
     DIST:CHIKKAMAGALUR.
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.M. KALWAD, ADV. FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)

IN MFA NO.25281/2012

AND:

1. CHANNAPPA S/O VITTAPPA LAMANI AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O NALERI TANDE, BAMMIGATTI, TALUKA:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD.

2. KUMAR ASHOK S/O CHANNAPPA LAMANI AGE:13 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O NALERI TANDE, BAMMIGATTI, TALUK:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD.

3. KUMARI VIJAYA D/O CHANNAPPA LAMANI AGE:11 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O NALERI TANDE, BAMMIGATTI, TALUK:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD

(RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS-REP. BY THEIR FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN-R1)

4. SRI. M PRAKASH K MANJAPPA AGE:MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-31/1173, R/O MADARVANI, NARASHIHRAJAPURA, DIST:CHIKKAMAGALUR.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADV. FOR R1) (R2 & R3-MINORS REP. BY R1) (R4-SERVED)

MFA NO.25280/2012 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 3.7.2012 PASSED BY THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIV-2, HUBLI IN CASE NO.WCA/SR NO.25/2010 AND DISMISS THE CLAIM AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

MFA NO.25281/2012 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 3.7.2012 PASSED BY THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIV-2, HUBLI IN CASE

NO.WCA/SR NO.26/2010 AND DISMISS THE CLAIM AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

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

COMMON JUDGMENT

These two appeals are by the insurer calling in

question the legality of the award dated 3.7.2012 passed

in WCA/SR Nos.25 and 26 of 2010 by the learned Labour

Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,

Sub-division-2, Hubli (for short, 'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts are that one Smt. Susheela and

Smt. Shantavva were working as Coolies in a Truck

bearing registration No.KA-31/1173 owned by one

M. Prakash (respondent No.1 before the learned

Commissioner) and insured with appellant herein. It is

stated that on 12.11.2009, both deceased and some

others were proceeding in the said truck as per the

instructions of respondent No.1-M. Prakash and on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

truck in question, it fell into a ditch, and due to the

impact injuries, both deceased died. The claim petition

before the learned Commissioner was maintained by their

dependents.

3. The claim petition before the learned

Commissioner was contested by only appellant/insurer.

The claim made in the claim petition to the effect that

both the deceased were employees under respondent

No.1-M. Prakash and they were receiving wages from him,

had gone uncontroverted by the employer.

4. During the course of enquiry, witnesses were

examined on behalf of the claimants including PW3, who is

stated to be an eye-witness. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked

for the claimants. The appellant/insurance company

examined one witness and policy of insurance was

marked.

5. Upon consideration of the materials produced

before him, the learned Commissioner recorded a finding

that the employer and employee relationship between

respondent No.1-M Prakash and the deceased was

established and further that the accident resulting in

death of the deceased took place in the course of and

arising out of the employment. The learned Commissioner

further recorded a finding that the deceased were

receiving wages of Rs.3,260/- per month and the

deceased Shantavva was aged about 30 years and

deceased Susheela was aged about 20 years at the time of

their death. Thereafter, by applying relevant factor, the

learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of

Rs.3,65,120/- for the death of Smt.Susheela and a sum of

Rs.3,39,007/- for the death of Smt.Shantavva. The

learned Commissioner also awarded interest at 12% per

annum on the compensation amount.

6. Sri. M.Y. Katagi, learned counsel for the

appellant-insurer strenuously contended before me that

the employer and employee relationship between

respondent No.1-M.Prakash and the deceased has not

been established before the learned Commissioner and on

other hand, Exs.P1, P2 and P7 clearly showed that the

deceased were traveling as passengers in the said truck

and the learned Commissioner has entirely overlooked the

said material evidence. Therefore, the finding of the

learned Commissioner is perverse. In this connection, he

further contended that as per Exs.P1, P2 and P7, they

were only passengers in the truck in question and they

were not employees of the insured-M. Prakash. He further

submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the

claimants have improved their versions after the accident

in order to secure compensation. Therefore, he submits

that the finding of the learned Commissioner is liable to

be interfered with and the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. Sri. S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents-claimants, on the other hand, submits

that the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner

regarding employer and employee relationship between

respondent No.1-M.Prakash and the deceased is a

question of fact and therefore, the same is not liable to be

interfered with, so long as the finding of the learned

Commissioner is based on evidence. In this behalf, he

places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and others Vs.

Divisional Manager and Another, reported in (2017) 1

SCC 45.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on either side and also perused the

records.

9. The learned Commissioner upon discussion of the

entire materials placed on record has come to a

conclusion that the employee and employer relationship

between the deceased and respondent No.1-M.Prakash,

who is owner of the truck in question has been

established. It is not the case of the appellant/insurance

company that the finding arrived at by the learned

Commissioner is based on no evidence, but submission of

the learned counsel for the appellant is that the

appreciation of the evidence done by the learned

Commissioner is not proper and he has not given due

weightage to the police documents namely Exs.P1, P2 and

P7. Law is well settled that so long as conclusion arrived

at by the learned Commissioner is based on evidence, and

it is not perverse, same is not liable to be interfered with

in exercise of power under Section 30(1) of the

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. A reference may be

made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Golla Rajanna (supra).

10. The learned Commissioner having discussed the

evidence produced before him has come to a conclusion

that the employer and employee relationship has been

established and that being a finding of fact, same is not

liable to be interfered with at the hands of this Court.

Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for

consideration in these appeals and accordingly, they are

liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The above appeals are dismissed.

b) The amount in deposit, if any, before this

Court in both appeals shall be

transmitted to the jurisdictional Court of

learned Senior Civil Judge forthwith along

with records.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR