Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager M/S National ... vs Shivanand S/O Gurubalappa Bandi ... on 22 June, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.200249/2014 (WC)
C/w
MFA No.200250/2014
MFA No.200251/2014
MFA No.200249/2014:
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Porwal Building,
Siddeshwar Cross Road,
Bijapur.
(Now, Represented by
Authorised Signatory, D.O, Gulbarga)
.....Appellant
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shivanand S/o Gurubalappa Bandi,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o: Kannur, Tq. & Dist: Bijapur-586101.
2
2. Sri. Arvind H.Kasinakunte,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o: Agasabal, Post: Dhavalagi,
Tq: Muddebihal, Dist: Bijapur-586101.
(Owner of Pick Up Vehicle
No.KA-28/A-887)
.....Respondents
(Notice to R1 & R2 are served)
This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act,
praying to call for the records, allow this appeal and set
aside the impugned Common Judgment and order by
Labour Officer & W.C. Commissioner at Bijapur, Sub Dvn.-
I, WC SR.No.297/07 dated 28.06.2013, awarding
compensation to the original petitioner-respondent No.1
herein of Rs.94,589/- at 12% p.a. from one month after
date of accident i.e, from 02.06.2007 till date of deposit.
MFA No.200250/2014
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Porwal Building,
Siddeshwar Cross Road,
Bijapur.
(Now, Represented by
Authorised Signatory, D.O, Gulbarga)
.....Appellant
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate)
3
AND:
1. Yallappa S/o Irappa Talwar,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o: Kannur,
Tq. & Dist: Bijapur-586101.
2. Sri. Arvind H.Kasinakunte,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o: Agasabal, Post: Dhavalagi,
Tq: Muddebihal,
Dist: Bijapur-586101.
(Owner of Pick Up Vehicle
No.KA-28/A-887)
.....Respondents
(Notice to R1 & R2 are served)
This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act,
praying to call for the records, allow this appeal and set
aside the impugned Common Judgment and order by
Labour Officer & Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation at Bijapur, WC SR.No.296/07 dated
28.06.2013, awarding compensation to the original
petitioner-respondent No.1 herein of Rs.61,123/- at 12%
p.a. from one month after date of accident i.e, from
02.06.2007 till date of deposit.
4
MFA No.200251/2014
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Porwal Building,
Siddeshwar Cross Road,
Bijapur.
(Now, Represented by
Authorised Signatory, D.O, Gulbarga)
.....Appellant
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Basawaraj S/o Gurubasappa Mangalore,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o: Kannur, Tq. & Dist: Bijapur-586101.
2. Sri. Arvind H.Kasinakunte,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o: Agasabal, Post: Dhavalagi,
Tq: Muddebihal, Dist: Bijapur-586101.
(Owner of Pick Up Vehicle
No.KA-28/A-887)
.....Respondents
(Notice to R1 & R2 are served)
This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act,
praying to call for the records, allow this appeal and set
aside the impugned Common Judgment and order by
Labour Officer & W.C. Commissioner at at Bijapur in WC
SR.No.295/07 dated 28.06.2013, awarding compensation
to the original petitioner-respondent No.1 herein of
Rs.53,206/- at 12% p.a. from one month after date of
accident i.e, from 02.06.2007 till date of deposit.
5
These Appeals coming on for Admission, this day,
the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the
common judgment and award dated 28.06.2013
passed by the Commissioner on the ground of liability
and quantum. The appellant has also raised an issue
regarding the relationship of employee and employer.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred with the ranks occupied by them before the
Commissioner.
3. The claimants have filed the claim petitions
before the Commissioner in respect of injury sustained
by them in the accident. After considering the
evidence on record, the Commissioner has awarded
compensation of Rs.53,206/-, Rs.61,123/- and
Rs.94,589/- respectively. The Commissioner has also
taken the disability @ 15% pursuant to the two claim
petitions and 20% in respect of third claim petition.
4. The Insurance Company has challenged the
award on the ground that there is no evidence
regarding relationship of employee and employer. But
the Commissioner has considered these aspects in
detail and has come to a conclusion that the
relationship is established. Further, the Commissioner
has also considered the other grounds raised by the
Insurance Company and awarded reasonable
compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company would contend that the disability
taken by the Commissioner is on higher side.
However, no material evidence is placed so as to
interfere regarding the disability taken by the
Commissioner in the absence of any other material
evidence. The other grounds raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that
the claimant was not holding valid and effective
driving license to drive the insured goods vehicle,
which is a transport vehicle but the document shows
that he was holding LMV non-transport vehicle. But
this aspect has been covered by the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, and hence these
arguments holds no water. Under such
circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the
Commissioner does not call for any interference. No
substantial question of law is involved and hence
these appeals being devoid of any merits needs to be
rejected.
6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following;
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
msr
