Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt Shantavva on 3 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A.No.21101/2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELGAUM,
NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANGER,
V.C.SINGANNAVAR,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SHANTAVVA
W/O RAMAPPA METIKAL @ SANNAPPANAVAR,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O HOSUR, TAL:BADAMI DIST:BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. YAMANAVVA W/O YALLAPPA METIKAL,
AGE 65 YEARS,. OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. HOSUR, TAL:BADAMI,
DIST:BAGALKOT.
3. BHIMAVVA D/O RAMAPPA METIKAL
@ SANNAPPANAVAR,
AGE 8 YEARS,. OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. HOSUR, TAL:BADAMI, DIST:BAGALKOT.
4. SHRI HANAMANTAGOUDA H.METI,
AGE MAJOR. OCC: OWNER OF -
:2:
VEHICLE NO.KA-29/6382, 6383,
R/O. JALIHAL, TAL:BADAMI,
DIST:BADAMI.
..RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 -SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS
PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 29-12-2009 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT
IN WCA.NF.NO.68/2005 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT
TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award of compensation of
Rs.3,14,880/- for the death of Ramappa Metikal.
2. The case of the legal heirs of the Ramappa
Metikal was that on 29.11.2003 at about 6.00 p.m.
when the deceased Ramappa and the other laborers
were digging the mud and loading the tractor
trailer, at that time, suddenly the mud fell on the
deceased, due to which, Ramappa died on the spot.
3. The contention of the Insurance Company
was that the deceased was not the employee of the
1 s t respondent-Hanamanthgouda H. Meti and that
the motor vehicle was in no way involved in the
death of Ramappa. The Commissioner has framed
six issues which read as follows :
"«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
1) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àw 1£Éà ¥Àæ w ªÁ¢UÀ¼À
ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀÆ° JAzÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ¤gÀvÀ£ÁVzÁÝUÀ,
PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ªÉÃ¼É PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ¢AzÀ GAmÁzÀ
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÁVzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ
¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉ?
2) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À D²æ v ÀgÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À zÀÄrªÉÄAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÉ
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉ?
3) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¤UÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ PÁ®zÀ°è 29
ªÀ¥s À ðUÀ¼ÁVzÀݪÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ wAUÀ½UÉ
4000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ¸ÀA§¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÀPÉÌ 50/-
¢£À¨s À vÉÛ ¥ÀrAiÀÄÄwÛ z ÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ü à vÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À ¸Á«UÁV ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ
CºÀðgÉ ºÁVzÀÝ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ ª É¥s À ÄÖ ºÁUÀÆ
¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¨ÁzÀå¸ÀÛ g ÁgÀÄ?
5) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ
§rØ A iÀÄ ªÉÆÃvÀÛ ª ɵÀÄÖ ? ºÁUÀÆ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
¨ÁzÀå¸ÀÛ g ÁgÀÄ?
6) DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?"
4. The Commissioner on assessing the evidence
has merely gone on to accept the deceased was the
employee of the 1st respondent and death had
occurred during the course of his employment and
therefore, the 1 s t respondent was liable.
5. The question of law that arises for
consideration in this appeal is:
" Whether the Commissioner could
have award ed any comp ensation without first
determining whether the death of the
employee had occurred out of the use of the
motor vehicle?"
6. As stated above, the claim averments
indicate that while Ramappa was engaged in the
task of loading the tractor trailer, suddenly the mud
fell on him and as a result, he was killed at the
spot. The Commissioner, in order to foist the
liability on the Insurance Company would have to
first necessarily record a finding as to whether the
death occurred due to the use of motor cycle which
the appellant had insured. In the instant case, the
Commissioner has not recorded any finding as to
whether the motor vehicle which had been insured
with the appellant was in any way responsible for
mud falling on the deceased-Ramappa.
7. In my view, therefore the matter requires to
be remanded to the jurisdictional Court with a
direction to record a finding as to whether the
tractor trailer which was insured with the appellant
was actually involved in the accident which resulted
in the death of Ramappa. The question of law is
answered accordingly.
8. The matter stands remanded to the
jurisdictional Court to consider the above factor
afresh. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
9. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
to the Commissioner, who shall invest the same in
the fixed deposit scheme and ultimately decide on
its disbursement after deciding the claim petition on
its merits.
SD
JUDGE
ckk
