Sri.Saibanna vs Neelamma And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5454 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

            MFA No.201778 OF 2019 (WC)


BETWEEN:

SRI. SAIBANNA,
S/O DEVINDRAPPA TEGGINAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O KARADKAL, SHORAPUR TALUK,
YADGIRI - DISTRICT.
                                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK & SRI. A.S. RAWOOR, ADVS.)


AND:

1.     NEELAMMA,
       W/O LATE MALLANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
       OCC: COOLIE & HH,

2.     SIDDAPP,
       S/O LATE MALLANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
       OCC: NIL,

3.     DEVAPPA,
       S/O LATE MALLANNA,
                              2




      AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
      OCC: NIL,

4.    BHAGYASHREE,
      D/O LATE MALLANNA,
      AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
      OCC: NIL,

5.    RENUKA,
      D/O LATE MALLANNA,
      AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
      OCC: NIL,

6.    DEVAKEMMA,
      W/O LATE MONAPPA YELUR,
      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
      OCC: NIL,

      ALL R/O KARADKAL,
      SHORAPUR TALUK,
      YADGIRI DISTRICT.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST            APPEAL    IS   FILED
UNDER     SECTION    30(1)        OF     THE       EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND   ALLOW   THE   APPEAL       BY    SETTING   ASIDE    THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2018                  IN ECA
NO.03/2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SHAHAPUR.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3




                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant under

Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act,

1923 (for short 'the Act') aggrieved by the judgment

and award dated 31.12.2018 passed in

E.C.A.No.3/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and

Employees Compensation Court, Yadgir.

2. As per section 30(1) provides an appeal to

the High Court from the order of Commissioner.

Proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 30, provides no

appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie

unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by

a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that

the appellant has deposited with him the amount

payable under the order appealed against.

3. In the present case, appellant has not

deposited the award amount as ordered by the

Commissioner. The office has raised objection in

regard to the maintainability of the appeal, on the

ground that, the appellant has not deposited the

amount award by the Commissioner. In view of

proviso to sub-section 1 of section 30 appeal is not

maintainable without depositing the compensation

amount. Accordingly, office objections are upheld,

appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE GRD