Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shivananjappa on 23 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
M.F.A.NO.5683/2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMASWAMY CIRCLE,
MYSORE.
NOW REP. BY
REGIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
144, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANANJAPPA
S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S. DODDAPURA VILLAGE,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
2. H.B.PUTTASWAMAPPA
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/O HALLIKERE HUNDI,
GANIGARUR POST,
2
CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ. & DIST. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.NAVEEN B.H., ADV., FOR R1;
MR.S.HEMACHANDRA, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2010 PASSED IN WCA/NFC/CR-
331/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, MYSORE
DISTRICT, MYSORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,22,004/-.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance
Company calling in question the legality and validity of the
award dated 21.04.2010 in WCA/NFC/CR-331/2007 passed
by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation, Mysore District, Mysore.
2. The short grievance of the appellant/insurance
company is that the finding of the learned Commissioner
that there was employer-employee relationship between
the insured-owner of the tractor and trailer bearing
Reg.No.KA-10/T-2577 and the claimant is based on no
evidence and further that the claimant himself suffered
injury while feeding jowar to the threshing machine
attached to the tractor and therefore, the policy of
insurance issued by the appellant-insurance company does
not cover such a risk.
3. The dispute in this appeal arises in the following
factual matrix.
It is the case of the claimant that on 27.11.2006 at
about 11.00 am, while he was working as an employee
under respondent No.1 Sri.H.B.Puttaswamappa (before
learned Commissioner) who is the owner of the tractor and
trailer in question and insured with the appellant/insurance
company, he suffered injury and his right leg was
amputated. According to him, as per the instruction of the
owner of tractor and trailer, he was feeding jowar to the
threshing machine and at that time, he suffered injury.
4. Learned Commissioner has recorded a finding
that employer-employee relationship has been established
and accident resulting in the injury had occurred in the
course of and arising out of employment and on such
finding, he awarded Rs.1,22,004/- as compensation with
interest thereon.
5. The insured owner of the tractor and trailer has filed
a detailed statement of objections denying the employer-
employee relationship and also the manner of occurrence
of the accident itself. He has asserted that the claimant
had suffered the said injury while he was feeding maize to
the threshing machine attached to the tractor and trailer in
front of his house.
6. The relevant para in the charge sheet-Ex.P3 reads as
follows :
PÀ®A 338 ¨sÀ.zÀA.¸ÀA.
¢£ÁAPÀ 27-11-06 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è n.£ÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ S. zÉÆqÀØ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ
ªÁå¦Û 1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÁ®A 4 gÀ°è PÀAqÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ mÁæPÀÖgï
£ÀA. KA-10-T-2577 of ªÀÄĸÀÄQ£À eÉÆüÀzÀ «ÄµÀ£ï
C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vɣɬÄAzÀ eÉÆüÀ ©r¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä §A¢zÁÝUÀ, ¸ÁQë
1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ ªÀÄĸÀÄQ£À eÉÆüÀzÀ vÉ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MPÀÌuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä
(eÉÆüÀ ©r¸À®Ä) «ÄµÀ£ïUÉ ºÁQzÁUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ GzÁ¹Ã£ÀvÉ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤®ðPÀëvɬÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤°è¹ mÁæPÀÖgï
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ÄµÀ£ï£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ
§®UÁ®Ä «ÄµÀ£ï M¼ÀPÉÌ ¹QÌPÉÆAqÀÄ §®UÁ®Ä ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ
gÀPÀÛ¸ÁæªÀ UÁAiÀĪÁV wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ
PÀ®A jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
7. The claimant has only examined himself and he has
not examined any other independent witnesses to support
his case. The statement of objections filed by 1st
respondent-H.B.Puttaswamappa and the charge sheet filed
clearly discloses that the claimant had hired the tractor
attached to the threshing machine for removing corn from
maize and the said purpose, the tractor was taken to yard
near his house and while the claimant was feeding maize
to the threshing machine, his leg got entangled in the
machine and in the said accident, his right leg was
amputated. Under such circumstances, the learned
Commissioner was wholly in error in recording a finding
that there is jural relationship of employer-employee
between the owner of the tractor and the claimant. Further
the finding of the learned Commissioner is that such injury
had arisen in the course of employment without any basis
in the evidence. The records produced clearly shows that
the claimant had hired the threshing machine attached to
the tractor and he was feeding such machine in his own
yard and therefore the risk involved in the same cannot be
said to be covered by the policy issued by the appellant.
The accident cannot be said to have taken place while
tractor and trailer was being used for agricultural
operation. The policy of insurance covers only when the
risk arises due to use of tractor and trailer for agricultural
purpose and not when any other machine is attached to
the tractor. In that view of the matter, the finding of
learned Commissioner is totally without support of
evidence and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the above
appeal is allowed.
9. The award dated 21.04.2010 in WCA/NFC/CR-
331/2007 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner
for Workmen Compensation, Mysore District, Mysore is set
aside to the extent that the liability to pay compensation is
fastened on the appellant herein.
10. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the
appellant. Records shall be transmitted to the learned
court below forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS/-
