The Branch Manager vs Sri.Veeranna S/O.Mallappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 3696 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 04 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                          BEFORE
 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                MFA No.24041 OF 2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELLARY, NOW BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR,
SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBBALLI-29.
                                                  ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     SRI. VEERANNA S/O. MALLAPPA
       AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI,
       R/O: KOWL BAZAAR, BELLARY.

2.     SRI. SHAPDAR HUSSAIN
       S/O. ABDUL BASHEERSAB,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
       THE LORRY BEARING REGISTERATION
       NO.KA-16/1087,
       R/O: NEAR PLD BANK, MOLAKALMUR,
       DIST: CHITRADURGA.
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.03.2010 PASSED IN W.C.A N.F NO. 716/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR    OFFICER    AND    COMMISSIONER     FOR   WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-2, BELLARY,        AWARDING     THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.64,256/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
                                      :2:



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                  JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging

the award of Rs.64,256/- for the injuries suffered in the accident

which occurred on 15.07.2002.

2. The Commissioner on assessment of the oral and

documentary evidence produced before him has recorded a

finding of fact that the claimant was an employee of respondent

No.1 and the accident occurred during the course of his

employment. The Commissioner has also assessed the

disabilities and loss of earning capacity of the workmen and

awarded a sum of Rs.64,256/-.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant however

submitted that there was no evidence to establish that the

claimant was an employee under respondent No.1.

4. It is to be stated here that on appreciation of the

evidence, a finding of fact has been recorded that the claimant

was an employee under respondent No.1. This finding is

essentially a finding of fact, which is not amenable to

interference in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's

Compensation Act, 1923.

5. I therefore find no reason to entertain this appeal

and the same is dismissed.

6. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to

the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with award.

7. In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending

applications, if any, shall stand disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM