Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager, vs Lokesh S/O Naganna, 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
M.F.A.NO.21447/2013
C/W
M.F.A.Nos.21445/2013, 21448/2013 & 21449/2013
IN M.F.A.NO.21447/2013
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., BELLARY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SUNKANNA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: EX-LOADER,
R/O. HULAGI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
2. SRI. KULTRAN SINGH S/O. YESHWANT SINGH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LORRY OWNER,
R/O. CW 71, S G T NAGAR DELHI,
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.HR-55/A-1822)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. G. S. MOT, ADV., FOR R2)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 05.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL
DISTRICT, KOPPAL IN W.C.NO.115/2003 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
IN M.F.A.NO.21445/2013
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., BELLARY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ERANNA S/O. BANDAPPA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: EX-LOADER,
R/O. MUDLAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
2. SRI. KULTRAN SINGH S/O. YESHWANT SINGH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LORRY OWNER,
R/O. CW 71, S G T NAGAR DELHI,
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.HR-55/A-1822)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. G. S. MOT, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 05.02.2003 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
3
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL
DISTRICT, KOPPAL IN W.C.NO.114/2003 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
IN M.F.A.NO.21448/2013
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., BELLARY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. FAKEERAPPA S/O. SUNKAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: EX-LOADER,
R/O. MUDLAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
2. SRI. KULTRAN SINGH S/O. YESHWANT SINGH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LORRY OWNER,
R/O. CW 71, S G T NAGAR DELHI,
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.HR-55/A-1822)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. G. S. MOT, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 05.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL
DISTRICT, KOPPAL IN W.C.NO.116/2003 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
4
IN M.F.A.NO.21449/2013
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., BELLARY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. LOKESH S/O. NAGANNA
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: EX-LOADER,
R/O. HULGI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL
2. SRI. KULTRAN SINGH S/O. YESHWANT SINGH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LORRY OWNER,
R/O. CW 71, S G T NAGAR DELHI,
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.HR-55/A-1822)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. G. S. MOT, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 05.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL
DISTRICT, KOPPAL IN W.C.NO.113/2003 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These appeals are by the insurer under Section
30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for
short "the Act") calling in question the legality of the
award dated 05.02.2013 in W.C.Nos.113/2003 to
116/2003 passed by the learned Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal
District, Koppal (for short "the Commissioner").
2. Brief facts are that the claimants had
approached the learned Commissioner with a claim that
they were all working as Hamalies in truck bearing
registration No.HR-55/A-1822 owned by respondent
No.1-Kultran Singh, who is a resident of Delhi and
insured with the appellant herein. It is stated that on
01.06.2003, while the claimants were proceeding in the
said lorry, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-
28/F-1082 dashed to the lorry on NH-13 near Sati Vilas
and on account of the same, claimants suffered serious
injuries.
3. Learned Commissioner by the impugned
award has granted compensation to the claimants at
Rs.1,35,352/-, Rs.1,19,285/-, Rs.1,13,557/- and
Rs.1,18,433/- respectively, with interest thereon.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant-insurer in support of these appeals is that in
spite of this Court passing an order directing the
learned Commissioner to hold enquiry and return a
finding as to whether M/s.Jayalaxmi Transport was the
authorized agent to represent respondent No.1-Kultran
Singh, learned Commissioner has failed to issue notice
personally to Kultran Singh, who is a resident of Delhi
and ensure service to him, the notice was issued from
the learned Commissioner to Kultran Singh showing his
address at Bellary and on account of the same,
respondent No.1-Kultran Singh was not served with
notice at all. He further submits that without service of
notice personally to respondent No.1-Kultran Singh,
learned Commissioner could not have decided regarding
representation of him by either Jayalaxmi Transport
Company or by Veerabhadrappa.
5. I have also heard learned Counsel Sri.
Laxmikanth Reddy for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel on both sides submit that
matter is required to be remanded with a direction to
hold an enquiry as to whether respondent No.1-Kultran
Singh had authorized M/s.Jayalaxmi Transport Company
or any other person to represent him. The above
submission is made in the background that there is no
dispute about the fact that the vehicle involved in the
accident, namely, lorry bearing registration No.HR-
55/A-1822 is owned by respondent No.1/Kultran Singh
and it is insured with the appellant herein. Therefore,
in order to establish the crucial aspect as to whether
there was employer-employee relationship between
Kultran Singh and the claimants, it is necessary to find
out whether Jayalaxmi Transport Company, who had
employed these claimants, as per the claim of the
claimants themselves, had proper authority to act on
behalf of Kultran Singh for the purposes including
hiring Hamalies to work on the lorry. Since the entire
proceedings culminated in the impugned award dated
05.02.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner
without ensuring notice to respondent No.1 personally,
the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner is
wholly without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter,
appeals are required to be allowed by remanding the
proceedings to the learned Commissioner for holding a
fresh enquiry as to whether there was express authority
given by respondent No.1-Kultran Singh in favour of
M/s.Jayalaxmi Transport Company to act as its agent
for all purposes including hiring of Hamalies for working
in the lorry bearing registration No.HR-55/A-1822.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The above appeals are allowed.
ii) The impugned award dated 05.02.2013 in
W.C.Nos.113/2003 to 116/2003 passed by
the learned Commissioner is set aside with
a direction to the learned Commissioner to
proceed with enquiry by issuing notice to
Sri.Kultran Singh personally at his address
in Delhi and thereafter hold limited enquiry
as to whether respondent No.1-Kultran
Singh had authorized M/s. Jayalaxmi
Transport Company to act on his behalf in
respect of lorry in question.
iii) The learned commissioner is directed to
finalize enquiry on or before 25.10.2021 by
giving opportunities to both the sides.
iv) The amount in deposit before this Court
shall be retained till after enquiry is
finalized by the learned Commissioner as
directed hereinabove.
v) Registry is directed to keep the amounts in
deposit in F.D. in State Bank of India, High
Court Branch at Dharwad to the credit of
this case.
vi) Registry to return the TCR to the learned
Commissioner forthwith.
vii) In view of disposal of the appeals, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
yan
