The Branch Manager National ... vs Smt. Umadevi W/O Alte Shivaraj And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6015 Kant

                               1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

               MFA No.31574/2013 (WC)

Between:
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur.
By its Divisional Manager.
                                              ... Appellant
(By Sri. Sudarshan M, Advocate)

And:

1.     Smt. Umadevi W/o Late Shivraj,
       Age: About 32 years, Occ: Household,

2.     Surekha D/o Late Shivraj,
       Age: About 13 years, Occ: Student,

3.     Sudeep S/o Late Shivraj,
       Age: About 9 years, Occ: Student,

       (Respondent No.2 and 3 has minors
       Represented by Natural mother
       Respondent No.1)

       All are R/o Devsugur,
       Tq: & Dist: Raichur-584 101.
                              2




4.   Sri. P.V.Ramgopal reddy,
     Age: Major, Occ: Owner of the
     Vehicle & Business,
     R/o Racharla Construction,
     Plot No.41 & 42,
     Raghavendra Colony, Shakti Nagar,
     Raichur-584 101.
                                          ... Respondents

(By Sri. Basavaraj R.Math, Advocate for R1 to R3;
R4 deemed to have been served)

      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 praying
to allow the above Misc. First Appeal and set aside the
judgment and award dated 05.04.2013 passed by the
Commissioner, For Workmen's Compensation at Raichur in
W.C.No.126/2011 and consequently is pleased to
discharge from liability to pay the compensation and also
pleased to reduce the compensation suitably.

      This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day,
the Court delivered the following:-


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under Section 30(1) of

the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act', for short) challenging the

judgment and award dated 05.04.2013 passed in W.C.

No.126/2011 by the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'CWC', for

short).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the CWC.

Appellant is respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 3

are the petitioners and respondent No.4 is respondent

No.1 before the CWC.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that the deceased Shivaraj was

working as labour under respondent No.1. The

deceased had reported for the duties on 30.11.2010

at about 2.00 p.m. At 3.00 p.m. the deceased

Shivaraj suffered heard pain and shifted to the

hospital and in the evening he died. As a result, the

petitioners have filed the claim petition under Section

22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking

for compensation on the account of death of deceased

Shivaraj during the course of employment.

4. Respondent No.1 has not filed written

statement and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed

written statement denying the averments made in the

petition and contended that the death of Shivaraj was

not occurred during the course of employment. Hence,

insurer is not liable to pay compensation. On these

grounds prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.2

examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Respondents have not

adduced evidence either oral or documentary

documents. After recording the evidence and

considering the material on record, the CWC has

recorded a finding that petitioners have proved that

the deceased died during the course of his

employment with respondent No.1 and further held

that the petitioners are entitled for compensation and

consequently allowed the claim petition and awarded a

compensation of Rs.5,91,063/- with interest @ 12%

p.a. Being dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the respondent No.2 filed

the present appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for respondent

No.2-Insurance Company and learned counsel for

petitioners.

7. This Court vide order dated 26.08.2014,

admitted the appeal to consider the following

substantial question of law;

"Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation committed an error in misreading the material on record and evidence on record in holding that the

death occurred during the course of employment?

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2

submits that the death of Shivaraj was not occurred

during the course of employment. Hence, he submits

that without considering the said aspect the CWC has

passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, on

these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioners

submits that the deceased Shivaraj reported to the

duties on 30.11.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. and at about

3.00 p.m. the deceased Shivaraj has suffered heart

attack and died at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. He

submits that he has suffered heart attack during the

course of employment. Hence, submits that CWC was

justified in recording a finding that death was occurred

during the course of employment. Hence, on these

grounds sought for dismissal of the appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

11. The point that arise for consideration is

with regard to liability of compensation.

12. It is not in dispute that the deceased

Shivaraj was working as a labour under respondent

No.1. It is not in dispute that he was reported to the

duties on 30.11.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. and about

3.00 p.m. he suffered heart pain and he was shifted to

hospital and died at about 5.00 p.m. In order to

substantiate the contention, the petitioner No.2 was

examined as PW.1 and produced material to show that

the deceased Shivaraj died during the course of

employment. Respondent No.2 has filed written

statement denying that the death was not occurred

during the course of employment. Except filing written

statement, respondent No.2 has not examined any

witnesses or got marked any documents. Thus, there

is no rebuttal evidence. After considering the material

and evidence on record, the CWC recorded a finding

that the death was occurred during the course of

employment. The finding recorded by the CWC is

based on the material and evidence on record. Hence,

the CWC has not committed any error in misreading

the material and evidence on record in holding that

the death occurred during the course of employment.

The CWC was justified in allowing the claim petition. I

do not find any grounds to interfere with the

impugned judgment and award. Hence, substantial

question of law answered against appellant.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr