Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, National ... vs Basavaraj S/O Basanna on 23 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.22162 OF 2011 (WC)
c.w.
MFA NO.22159 OF 2011 (WC),
MFA NO.22160 OF 2011 (WC),
MFA NO.22161 OF 2011 (WC),
MFA NO.22163 OF 2011 (WC),
MFA NO.22164 OF 2011 (WC),
MFA NO.22162 OF 2011 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bellary, represented by Divisional Office
Sujata Complex, Near Bus Stand
P.B. Road, Hubli
By its Deputy Manager. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. Kayakmath, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Basavaraj S/o. Basanna
Age : 29 years, Occ : Ex-loader
R/o. Koralagundi village, Bellary taluk
Now at Huligi village
Tq. And Dist. Koppal.
2. Sri. A. Muniratnam S/o. Shivanarayan
Owner of Lorry bearing
Registration No. APPELLANT.27/V-7121
2
R/o. No.2/158, Chilamkur
Yarraguntla, Kadapa District
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
R.2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
KOPPPAL, IN W.C.A.NO.36/2008.
MFA NO.22159 OF 2011 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bellary, represented by Divisional Office
Sujata Complex, Near Bus Stand
P.B. Road, Hubli
By its Deputy Manager. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. Kayakmath, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Sri. Thirupati Reddy M
S/o. M. Pedda Subba Reddy
Age : 35 years, Occ : Ex-lorry driver
R/o. Khaza Nagar, Anantpur
Now at Munirabad village,
Tq. And Dist. Koppal.
2. Sri. A. Muniratnam S/o. Shivanarayan
Owner of Lorry bearing
Registration No. APPELLANT.27/V-7121
R/o. No.2/158, Chilamkur
Yarraguntla, Kadapa District
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
R.2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
KOPPPAL, IN W.C.A.NO.33/2008.
MFA NO.22160 OF 2011 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bellary, represented by Divisional Office
Sujata Complex, Near Bus Stand
P.B. Road, Hubli
By its Deputy Manager. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. Kayakmath, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Nagaraj S/o. Tippanna
Age : 32 years, Occ : Ex-cleaner
R/o. Toranagallu, Sandur taluk
Now at Huligi village
Tq. And Dist. Koppal.
2. Sri. A. Muniratnam S/o. Shivanarayan
Owner of Lorry bearing
Registration No. APPELLANT.27/V-7121
R/o. No.2/158, Chilamkur
Yarraguntla, Kadapa District
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
R.2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
4
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
KOPPPAL, IN W.C.A.NO.34/2008.
MFA NO.22161 OF 2011 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bellary, represented by Divisional Office
Sujata Complex, Near Bus Stand
P.B. Road, Hubli
By its Deputy Manager. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. Kayakmath, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Nagaraj S/o. Siddanna
Age : 28 years, Occ : Ex-loader
R/o. Handihal village, Bellary taluk
Now at Huligi village
Tq. And Dist. Koppal.
2. Sri. A. Muniratnam S/o. Shivanarayan
Owner of Lorry bearing
Registration No. APPELLANT.27/V-7121
R/o. No.2/158, Chilamkur
Yarraguntla, Kadapa District
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
R.2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
5
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
KOPPPAL, IN W.C.A.NO.35/2008.
MFA NO.22163 OF 2011 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bellary, represented by Divisional Office
Sujata Complex, Near Bus Stand
P.B. Road, Hubli
By its Deputy Manager. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. Kayakmath, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Shivakumar S/o. Tipperudrappa
Age : 24 years, Occ : Ex-loader
R/o. Chanahal village, Bellary taluk
Now at Huligi village
Tq. And Dist. Koppal.
2. Sri. A. Muniratnam S/o. Shivanarayan
Owner of Lorry bearing
Registration No. APPELLANT.27/V-7121
R/o. No.2/158, Chilamkur
Yarraguntla, Kadapa District
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
R.2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
KOPPPAL, IN W.C.A.NO.37/2008.
6
MFA NO.22164 OF 2011 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bellary, represented by Divisional Office
Sujata Complex, Near Bus Stand
P.B. Road, Hubli
By its Deputy Manager. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. Kayakmath, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Suresh S/o. Mallanna
Age : 23 years, Occ : Ex-loader
R/o. Handihal village, Bellary taluk
Now at Huligi village
Tq. And Dist. Koppal.
2. Sri. A. Muniratnam S/o. Shivanarayan
Owner of Lorry bearing
Registration No. APPELLANT.27/V-7121
R/o. No.2/158, Chilamkur
Yarraguntla, Kadapa District
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
R.2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
KOPPPAL, IN W.C.A.NO.38/2008.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the insurer
calling in question the legality of the award dated
30.07.2010 in WCA No.36/2008, 33/2008, 34/2008,
35/2008, 37/2008 and 38/2008 passed by the learned
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal.
2. Brief facts are that, claimant Tirupati Reddy was
the driver, claimant Nagaraj son of Thippanna was the
cleaner, claimant Nagaraj son of Siddanna, claimant
Basavaraj son of Basanna, claimant Shivakumar son of
Thipperudrappa and claimant Suresh son of Mallanna were
all working as 'hamalis' in lorry bearing registration
No.AP-27/V-7121 owned by respondent No.1 -
Munirathnam (before the learned Commissioner) and
insured with the appellant herein. It is stated that on
02.10.2007 as per the directions of respondent No.1 -
Munirathnam, they had unloaded maize in Challakere and
while they were returning to Bellary at about 2.00 a.m.,
on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the
lorry in question dashed to another lorry bearing No. TN-
28/L-9856 near Tammenahalli on S.H.19 resulting in
injuries to all the claimants. It is stated that initially they
had taken treatment in Toranagallu and also at Korlagundi
Primary Health Centre.
3. In the claim proceedings before the learned
Commissioner, respondent No.1 - Munirathanam appeared
and filed a written statement admitting employer-
employee relationship between him and the claimants
herein and their wages as well as the factum that the
accident resulting in injuries took place during the course
of and arising out of the employment.
4. During the enquiry claimants examined themselves
and also one qualified medical practitioner - Dr.
Lakshminarayana as a witness. Ex.P.1 to P.21 were also
marked. Ex.P.4, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.13 and
Ex.P.15 are the wound certificates issued by the
Government Hospitals in respect of the claimants herein
where they were initially taken for treatment.
5. The appellant did not examine any witnesses and
no documents were marked for them. Ex.P.2 was the
charge sheet and Ex.P.5 was the driving licence held by
the claimant Tirupati Reddy.
6. Upon consideration of the materials produced and
the evidence let in, learned Commissioner answered the
points arising for consideration in the proceedings in
favour of the claimants and against the appellant and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,602/- to claimant
Tirupati Reddy, Rs.1,07,021/- to Nagaraj son of Tippanna,
Rs.1,38,765/- to Nagaraj son of Siddanna, Rs.1,17,891/-
to Basavaraj, Rs.1,02,243/- to Shivakumar and
Rs.1,18,941/- to Suresh respectively, with interest
thereon at 12% p.a.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that the finding of the learned Commissioner
that employer-employee relationship between respondent
- Munirathnam and the claimants herein had been
established is not supported by the evidence placed before
the learned Commissioner. He further contended that the
assessment of the loss in earning capacity made by the
learned Commissioner is also based on no evidence. In
support of the above two submissions, learned counsel
contended that no documents were produced to show that
the claimants were working in the lorry which was insured
with the appellant and further that the qualified medical
practitioner - Dr. Lakshminarayana, examined as witness
was not an Orthopedic Surgeon and further that his
licence had been suspended.
8. I have heard Sri. B.S.Sangati, the learned
counsel for the claimants - respondents in detail.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on either side and also I have perused
the records of the case.
10. There is no dispute about the legal position that
in exercise of the power under Section 30(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, this Court should not
examine the records as if it is a Court of first appeal.
Similarly, merely because another view can be taken on
the same evidence, interference with the finding of the
learned Commissioner is not called for if the view taken
on the evidence by the Commissioner is reasonable and it
is not a finding based on no evidence. Hon'ble Supreme
Court has made the said position of law amply clear in a
decision reported in (2017) 1 SCC 45 - Golla Rajanna
and others vs. Divisional Manager and another.
After extracting Section 30 of the Employees
Compensation Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows:
"9. The Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner, having regard to the evidence,
had returned a finding on the nature of injury
and the percentage of disability. It is purely a
question of fact. There is no case for the
insurance company that the finding is based on
no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under
Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage
of permanent disability needs to be assessed
only by a qualified medical practitioner. There
is no case for the respondents that the doctor
who issued the disability certificate is not a
qualified medical practitioner, as defined under
the Act. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner has passed the order based on
the certificate of disability issued by the
doctor and which has been duly proved before
the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.
10. Under the scheme of the Act, the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the
last authority on facts. Parliament has
thought it fit to restrict the scope of the
appeal only to substantial questions of law,
being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the
High Court has missed this crucial question of
limited jurisdiction and has ventured to
reappreciate the evidence and recorded its
own findings on percentage of disability for
which also there is no basis. The whole
exercise made by the High Court is not within
the competence of the High Court under
Section 30 of the Act."
11. There is no dispute about the fact that
respondent No.1 is the R.C. owner and insured in respect
of the lorry bearing registration No. AP.27/V-7121 which
has met with an accident resulting in injuries to the
claimants. He has filed written statement before the
learned Commissioner clearly admitting employer-
employee relationship between him and the claimants.
The claimants have given evidence to the said effect. On
consideration of the same, learned Commissioner has
recorded a finding that the employer-employee
relationship as between the respondent No.1 - insured
and the claimants has been established. Ex.P.2 is the
charge sheet filed by the Police in this case. The charge
sheet also shows claimant No.1 - Tirupati Reddy as the
accused and the rest of the claimants as C.W. 8 to
C.W.12. In that view of the matter, the finding given by
the learned Commissioner on the aspect of employer-
employee relationship being fully supported by evidence
produced before the learned Commissioner, no substantial
question of law arises for consideration in regard to the
same and accordingly, I reject the contentions of the
learned counsel for the appellant on this score.
12. The next contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that, the assessment of loss in
the earning capacity made by the learned Commissioner is
upon the appraisal made by one Dr. Lakshminarayana
whose integrity as a qualified medical practitioner is
highly suspect, and in this behalf he submits that his
licence to practice has been suspended and he is facing
enquiry. However, perusal of the wound certificates
issued by independent medical officers of Government
Hospital which are at Exs.P.4, P.7, P.9, P.11, P.13 and
P.15 clearly show that, claimants had all suffered
fractures of the radius, ulna and tibia and fibula. These
claimants require deft manoeuvrability of their upper and
lower limbs for discharging their work as driver, cleaner
and 'hamalis'. Perusal of the award also shows that
learned Commissioner has not blindly accepted the
assessment made by Dr.Lakshminarayana and he has
come to his own conclusion on appraisal of the wound
certificates and the evidence and has fixed the loss of
earning capacity of claimant No.1 - Tirupati Reddy, the
driver at 30%, claimant No.2 Nagaraj the cleaner at 25%,
claimants No.3 Nagaraj, Basavaraj, Shivakumar and
Suresh who are all 'hamalis' at 35%, 30%, 25% and 30%
respectively. It cannot be said that such assessment
made by the learned Commissioner of the loss of the
earning capacity is based on no evidence and it is
perverse. Needless to say, this Court gets jurisdiction to
interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner
only if it comes to the conclusion that the finding of the
learned Commissioner is based on no evidence or it is
perverse. On the materials that are available on record,
it cannot be said that finding of the learned Commissioner
on this aspect is based on no evidence and such being the
case, no substantial question of law arises in this case
and accordingly, I reject the contentions of the learned
counsel for the appellant.
13. Consequently, there is no merit in these appeals
and they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
14. The above appeals are dismissed.
The amounts in deposit before this Registry shall be
transmitted to the Court of learned jurisdictional Senior
Civil Judge forthwith along with the records.
In view of disposal of the appeals, all pending
interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration
and they are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mgn/-
