Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager M/S National ... vs Sri.Raja S/O Venkateshappa And ... on 17 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.30850/2013 (WC)
C/W
MFA No.30851/2013 (WC)
MFA No.30852/2013 (WC)
MFA No.30853/2013 (WC)
In MFA No.30850/2013
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
RAICHUR, THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAIN ROAD
GULBARGA
... APPELLANT
(BY MS.SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.RAJA S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI
R/O DEVADURG
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
2. SRI HONNUR SWAMI
S/O LATE HAMBANNA
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REG.NO.KA-34/5252
R/O BANDI HATTI
2
COUL BAZAR
BALLARY-583 102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED IN
WCA/CR.NO.524/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER
FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AT RAICHUR.
IN MFA NO.30851/2013
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
RAICHUR THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE MAIN ROAD
GULBARGA
... APPELLANT
(BY MS.SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O GOVINDAPA
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI
R/O DEVADURG
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
2. SRI HONNUR SWAMI
S/O LATE HAMBANNA
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REG.NO.KA-34/5252
R/O BANDI HATTI, COUL BAZAR
BALLARY-583 102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
3
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED IN WCA / CR NO.
525/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AT RAICHUR.
IN MFA NO.30852/2013
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
RAICHUR, THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE MAIN ROAD
GULBARGA
... APPELLANT
(BY MS.SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI NAGARAJ S/O HULIGAPPA
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC:EX-HAMALI
R/O DEVADURGA
DIST. RAICHUR
2. SRI HONNUR SWAMI
S/O LATE HAMBANNA
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REG.NO.KA-34/5252
R/O BANDI HATTI, COUL BAZAR
BALLARY-583 102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
4
COMMON ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED IN
WCA/CR.NO.526/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER
FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AT RAICHUR.
IN MFA NO.30853/2013
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
RAICHUR, THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE MAIN ROAD
GULBARGA
... APPELLANT
(BY MS.SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O SHIVAPPA
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI
R/O DEVADURGA
DIST. RAICHUR
2. SRI HONNUR SWAMI
S/O LATE HAMBANNA
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REG.NO.KA-34/5252
R/O BANDI HATTI, COUL BAZAR
BALLARY-583 102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED IN
WCA/CR.NO.527/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER
FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AT RAICHUR.
5
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the National
Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 21.12.2012 passed in WCA/CR-
Nos.524/2008 to 527/2008 by the Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the CWC' for short) under
Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short)
fastening the liability on the appellant to compensate
the claimants.
2. The common order passed by the CWC is
challenged in these appeals, hence, all these appeals
are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the CWC.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 10.05.2005 as per the
direction of the respondent No.2, the claimants
namely Raja, Basavaraj, Nagaraj and Manjunath were
working as hamalis in a lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-34/5252. They loaded the mines powder near
Taranagar and about 5.30 p.m., after getting loaded
the mines powder, all of them were standing on the
top of the lorry tied the tadpal, during this course of
time, the lorry driver drove the lorry in reverse
direction to take a turn, all of a sudden, the soil near
the left back wheel was very loose, due to this, the
left side of the vehicle turtle downside and the tyre
was struck in the mud and due to this impact, the all
the four workers fell into ditch and sustained grievous
injuries.
5. The respondent No.1 filed written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The respondent No.2 filed the written
statement admitting the relationship as employer and
employee between the claimants and respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2 denied the averments made in
the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
7. The CWC recorded the evidence of the
claimants and consequently allowed the claim petition.
Hence, the Insurance Company aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the CWC, Raichur, has
filed these appeals.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also learned counsel for the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/
Insurance Company submits that the claim petitions
have been filed by the claimants before the CWC,
Bellary in W.C.Nos.246/2005 to 249/2005. The said
claim petitions came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution. The claimants suppressing the said fact
have filed these present claim petitions. She further
submits that the claim petitions filed by the claimants
are not tenable. The said aspect was not considered
by the CWC, Raichur. Hence, she prays to allow these
appeals filed by the Insurance Company.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants supports the impugned judgment and award
passed by the CWC, Raichur and prayed to dismiss the
appeals.
11. This Court has admitted these appeals on
the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the Commissioner committed an
error in holding that the accident occurred during
the course of employment?"
12. Learned counsel for the parties jointly
submit that the said substantial question may be
reframed. Their submission is placed on record. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
substantial question of law is reframed as under:
"Whether the Commissioner was
justified in entertaining the subsequent
claim petitions in view of dismissal of
W.C.Nos.246/2005 to 249/2005 for non-
prosecution?"
13. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. It is not in dispute that the claimants have
met with an accident and also a criminal case was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.
In the said accident, the claimants have suffered
injuries. The claimants have filed the claim petitions in
W.C.Nos.246/2005 to 249/2005 before the CWC,
Bellary. The CWC, Bellary dismissed the claim
petitions for non-prosecution. The claimants
suppressing the said fact have filed the present claim
petitions. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed
the written statement. The claimants ought to have
approached the said authority by filing necessary
applications for recalling the said order. Instead of
doing so, one more claim petition has been filed
before the CWC, Raichur claiming compensation.
Hence, the claim petitions filed by the claimants are
not maintainable. The CWC, at Raichur overlooking
the said aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned
order. On this ground alone, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned orders
passed by the CWC, Raichur are not sustainable and
liable to be set aside.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. All these appeals are allowed. The
judgment and award dated 21.12.2012
passed by the Commissioner for
Workmen's compensation, Raichur in WC
No.524/2008 to 527/2008 is hereby set
aside.
ii. Liberty is reserved to the claimants to
make necessary applications before the
Commissioner at Bellary for
reconsideration of earlier claim petitions
filed by them. If such applications are filed
for restoration of the petitions, the CWC,
Bellary is directed to restore the claim
petitions and dispose of the same within a
period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
iii. All the contentions of the parties are kept
open as the accident was of the year
2005.
iv. Amount in deposit be refunded to the
appellant.
v. Parties are directed to approach the
Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Bellary on 19.04.2022
without waiting for any further notice from
the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Bellary.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
