The Commissioner vs Smt Lakshidevamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 1461 Kant

                              1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9350 OF 2010 (WC)

BETWEEN:

       THE COMMISSIONER
       CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
       ROBERTSON PET,
       KGF.
                                              ...APPELLANT

       (BY SRI J.G. CHANDRA MOHAAN, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SMT. LAKSHIDEVAMMA
       W/O. LATE V. ANAND,
       AGED 30 YEARS.

2.     A. SUNIL
       S/O. LATE V. ANAND,
       AGED 14 YEARS,
       MINOR, REPRESETNED BY
       SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA.

3.     VENKATESHAPPA
       S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
       AGED 62 YEARS.

       APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT
       D-BLOCK, LOWER MUSKAM,
       ANDERSON PET,
       KGF.
                                  2




4.   S. RAVI
     S/O. T. SAMBHASHIVAN,
     PROPRIETOR: CHITRA OFFSET,
     MANUFACTURE OF SCREEN PRINTING BOARDS,
     GEETHA ROAD,
     ROBERTSON PET,
     KGF.

5.   LOGANATHAN
     S/O. LATE R. KUMARASWAMY,
     AGED 50 YEARS,
     NO.953, VIVEKANAGAR,
     ROBERTSON PET,
     KGF.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI H. SURESH, ADV., FOR R-1 TO 3, &
         SRI R. VICKRAMADITHAN, ADV., FOR R-4)

                                ***

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION     30(1)   OF   THE   WORKMEN'S    COMPENSATION       ACT
AGAINST     THE     JUDGMENT     DATED     3-9-2010   PASSED    IN
WCA/FC/CR-39/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER
AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOLAR
DISTRICT,     KOLAR,      AWARDING    A     COMPENSATION       OF
RS.3,31,730/- WITH INTEREST.



     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             3


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the Commissioner,

City Municipal Council, K.G.F., calling in question the

correctness and legality of the award dated 3-9-2010 in

WCA/FC/CR-39/2006 passed by the Labour Officer and

Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Kolar.

2. Claim petition proceeded on the allegation that

the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State was scheduled to

visit K.G.F Town on 28-7-2006 and in order to welcome

him, the appellant had commissioned the work of erecting

arches and putting up banners and on 30-7-2006 after

the function, such arches were being dismantled and

banners were being removed. It is further stated that on

30-7-2006 at about 3:00 p.m., while V. Anand (hereinafter

referred to as the 'deceased') was working as per the

directions of respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein, he was

electrocuted and he died instantaneously.

3. Learned Commissioner issued notice to the

appellant as well as two others, who are respondent Nos.4

and 5 herein. All of them filed their written statements

denying the material averments made in the claim

petition.

4. During trial, the wife of the deceased was

examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked.

Respondents have examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and several

documents were marked on their behalf.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides

and perusing the record, the Commissioner has allowed

the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of

Rs.3,31,730/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition and thereafter, 12% per annum from the

date of order.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that

the finding of the Commissioner that there was employer

and employee relationship between the appellant and the

deceased is based on no evidence. He submits that the

appellant had never employed the deceased for putting up

arches or banners and it had entrusted it to some

Contractors and the deceased was working for such

Contractors and while dismantling the arches and

removing banners, he got electrocuted and met with his

death. He, therefore, submitted that the finding of the

Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant

and I have carefully perused the record.

8. The evidence placed before the Commissioner

including the Police documents clearly shows that on

28-7-2006, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State was

scheduled to visit K.G.F. Town and in order to suitably

welcome him, the appellant had commissioned the work of

putting up arches and banners and the same have been

removed on 30-7-2006. The evidence shows that the

deceased was one of the Coolies engaged for removing

arches and banners and while he was engaged in the

same, he got electrocuted and died immediately. Hence,

the evidence clearly shows that while the deceased was

engaged in the same, he met with employment related

accident and died instantaneously. In that view of the

matter, the Commissioner, after considering the material

on record, has recorded a finding that there was employer

and employee relationship between the appellant and the

deceased and such finding cannot be said to be based on

no evidence. Under such circumstances, it is not open to

this Court to interfere with the finding of fact recorded

based on evidence in an appeal filed under Section 30(1) of

the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, there

is no merit in the appeal and same is required to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DVR / kvk