Karnataka High Court
H Mallikarjuna S/O ... vs T M Vishwanth S/O ... on 24 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.102450 OF 2014 (WC)
c.w.
MFA NO.102451 OF 2014 (WC)
MFA NO.102452 OF 2014 (WC)
MFA NO.102453 OF 2014 (WC)
MFA NO.102454 OF 2014 (WC)
MFA NO.102450 OF 2014 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
SRI.VEERESH
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC : EX-LOADER
SANKALAPUR, HOSSALLI TALUK
DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND FOR Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T.M. VISHWANTH (ADM)
S/O. SHIVASHANKARAYYA
OWNER OF LORRY NO. KA-35/2432
TMAE SOCIETY POLTECHNIC
BALLARY ROAD, HOSPET
TALUK HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
2
M/S. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
YALIMANCHALI COMPLEX
HOSPETH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
SRI. S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPPAL, IN
W.C.NO.82/2010 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
MFA NO.102451 OF 2014 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC : EX-LOADER
SANKALAPUR, HOSSALLI TALUK
DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND FOR Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T.M. VISHWANTH (ADM)
S/O. SHIVASHANKARAYYA
OWNER OF LORRY NO. KA-35/2432
TMAE SOCIETY POLYTECHNIC
BALLARY ROAD, HOSPET
TALUK HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
YALIMANCHALI COMPLEX
HOSPETH.
...RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
SRI. S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPPAL, IN
W.C.NO.83/2010 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
MFA NO.102452 OF 2014 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
SRI.SWAMY S/O. YANKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
OCC : EX-LOADER
SANKALAPUR, HOSSALLI TALUK
DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND FOR Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T.M. VISHWANTH (ADM)
S/O. SHIVASHANKARAYYA
OWNER OF LORRY NO. KA-35/2432
TMAE SOCIETY POLTECHNIC
BALLARY ROAD, HOSPET
TALUK HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
YALIMANCHALI COMPLEX
HOSPETH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
SRI. S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
4
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPPAL, IN
W.C.NO.84/2010 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
MFA NO.102453 OF 2014 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDRAJ
S/O. KOTRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC : EX-LOADER
AT SANKALAPUR, NOT AT HOSSALLI TALUK
DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND FOR Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T.M. VISHWANTH (ADM)
S/O. SHIVASHANKARAYYA
OWNER OF LORRY NO. KA-35/2432
TMAE SOCIETY POLTECHNIC
BALLARY ROAD, HOSPET
TALUK HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
YALIMANCHALI COMPLEX
HOSPETH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
SRI. S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
5
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPPAL, IN
W.C.NO.85/2010 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
MFA NO.102454 OF 2014 (WC) :
BETWEEN:
SRI.HOLAGUNDI HANUMANTH
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC : EX-LOADER
SANKALAPUR, HOSSALLI TALUK
DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND FOR Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T.M. VISHWANTH (ADM)
S/O. SHIVASHANKARAYYA
OWNER OF LORRY NO. KA-35/2432
TMAE SOCIETY POLYTECHNIC
BALLARY ROAD, HOSPET
TALUK HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
YALIMANCHALI COMPLEX
HOSPETH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.
SRI. S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPPAL, IN
W.C.NO.86/2010 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
6
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These are claimants' appeals calling in question the
legality of the award dated 27.12.2012 in WCA
No.82/2010, 83/2010, 84/2010, 85/2010 and 86/2010
passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Koppal.
2. Brief facts are that, these claimants were
working as 'hamalis' in truck bearing No.KA-35-2432
owned by respondent No.1 - T.M.Vishwanath and insured
with the respondent No.2 - United India Assurance Co.
Ltd.
3. It is stated that on 02.06.2009 at about 5.30
a.m. when the claimants were proceeding in the lorry
bearing No.KA-35-2432 as per the instructions of
respondent No.1 for unloading sand on N.H.13, near
Galemmana Gudi, the truck met with an accident and the
claimants suffered grievous injuries.
4. During the enquiry, upon consideration of the
materials produced before him, learned Commissioner
came to the conclusion that employer-employee
relationship between respondent No.1 and the claimants
were established and so also the fact that the accident
resulting in injuries to the claimants took place in the
course of and arising from the employment. However, in
spite of the fact that claimants had produced large
number of medical documents like Exs.P.5, P.7, P.8, P.9,
P.10, P.11, P.12, P.13, P.14, P15, P.16, P.17, P.18, P.19,
P.20, P.21, P.22 and P.23 which are all wound certificates,
x-ray reports and similar medical documents, learned
Commissioner dismissed the claim petitions on the ground
that qualified medical practitioner was not examined to
prove the loss in the earning capacity. Learned
Commissioner who was charged with the legal duty of
adjudicating on the compensation to be awarded to the
claimants who had suffered employment related injuries
ought to have either called upon the claimants to examine
a qualified medical practitioner, if such evidence was
necessary, or it was within his power and authority to
direct a Government Orthopedic Surgeon to examine the
claimants and assess the loss in the earning capacity, if
any, suffered by them on account of employment related
injuries. Learned Commissioner appears to have acted in
a mechanical manner and merely on account of the fact
that these illiterate claimants had not examined the
qualified medical practitioner, has proceeded to dismiss
the claim petitions, even though he had returned the
finding in their favour on crucial aspects like employer-
employee relationship and the injuries having been
suffered in the course of employment.
5. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to
be set aside with a direction to the learned Commissioner
to proceed with the enquiry from the stage at which it was
when the claim petitions were dismissed. Hence, the
following:
6. The above appeals are allowed.
The impugned award dated 27.12.2012 in WCA
No.82/2010, 83/2010, 84/2010, 85/2010 and 86/2010
passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Koppal, is set aside.
7. The learned jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge is
directed to proceed with the enquiry from the stage at
which it was at the time of passing of the impugned order
by affording opportunity to both sides to let in additional
evidence as is deemed necessary and thereafter dispose
of the claim petitions in accordance with law. It is open
to both sides to produce such evidence as is felt
necessary and relevant for deciding the dispute.
The learned jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge shall
dispose of these petitions on or before 31.10.2021.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mgn/-
