Karnataka High Court
The Proprietor / Owner vs Smt Anitha on 15 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
MFA No. 4500 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4500 OF 2019(ECA)
BETWEEN:
THE PROPRIETOR / OWNER,
OLAGUNDI ESTATE,
PANDARAVALLI VILLAGE,
JAGARAHOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANITHA,
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
Digitally 2. MASTER AJITH KUMAR,
signed by S/O LATE MANJUNATHA,
JAI JYOTHI J AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 3. KUM. HARSHITHA,
KARNATAKA D/O LATE MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.
SINCE THE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3
ARE MINORS,
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE APPELLANT NO.1.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
MFA No. 4500 of 2019
ALL ARE R/AT
OLANGUNDI ESTATE,
COOLIE LINE, PANDARAVALLI VILLAGE,
JAGARA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.
4. SMT. GURUVAMMA,
W/O SOMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
5. SRI. SOMAIAH,
S/O LATE MUDURA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.4 AND 5 ARE COOLIE,
R/AT HARALAGADDI VILLAGE,
HANDI POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 07/03/2019, PASSED IN ECA NO.21/2016, ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.7,42,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A.,
AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ACCIDENT, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
MFA No. 4500 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the owner of the estate aggrieved
by the award passed in ECA No.21/2016, dated 07.03.2019.
The claim petition is filed under Section 22 of the Employee's
Compensation Act read with Rule 20 of the Workmen
Compensation Rules relating to the death of the deceased.
2. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was
working in the appellant's Melgundi estate as a Labourer from
last two years. While he was working on 20.08.2015 at 5.30
p.m. he was plucking the coffee plants and accidentally he fell
down and sustained grievous injuries head injury and initially,
he was shifted to Primary Health Center, Mallanduru and
thereafter, he was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru.
The duty doctor of the said hospital examined him and declared
him as brought dead. They claimed that deceased was aged
about 40 years and was earning an amount of Rs.9,900/- per
month and as the accident had occurred during the course of
employment, employer is liable to pay compensation.
3. The owner had appeared before the Court below and
filed his detailed objections contending that the deceased was
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
working at Melugundi estate from one year prior to his death.
He does not know about the relationship between deceased and
the claimants. They have denied that the accident had taken
place during the course of employment. It is contended that in
almost all the coffee estates, the working hours are between
8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with one hour lunch break. There are
no coffee trees in his estate. Only the coffee plants are grown
to a maximum height of 5-6 feet. Thus, it is stated that the
deceased had consumed alcohol on the fateful day while he was
proceeding on the road, he fell down and sustained injuries and
died. The injuries have not been sustained during the time of
his work. Hence, they are not liable to pay compensation. The
Court below has held that in the chief-examination, the
Managing Partner of Melugundi estate by name M.J.Mathais has
stated that after completion of work Manjunatha consumed
alcohol and while proceedings in the Government road, he fell
down and sustained injuries. The Court has observed that
there is no mention about the Government road and in the
affidavit, there are some improvements. In cross-examination
he has admitted that deceased died while removing the coffee
plants and further admits that they have not given any
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
compensation to the claimants. RWs-2 and 3 have admitted
that both Melugundi estate and Olagundi estate were under the
same administration. Accordingly, the Court below has held
that there is an employer and employee relationship between
the owner and the deceased and granted compensation of
Rs.7,42,000/- at 12% per annum interest. Aggrieved thereby,
the owner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the owner submits that even as
per the cause title, the respondent is proprietor/owner of
Olagundi estate whereas, as per all other averments, deceased
was working in Melgundi estate and contends that there is no
employer employee relationship. Secondly, learned counsel
submits that even as per the wife of the deceased, the working
hours are between 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. The accident had
taken place at 5.30 p.m. The learned counsel submits that it
shows that the accident had not occurred during the course of
employment as it is categorically stated that deceased was
always under the influence of alcohol and while going on the
road, he might have fell down and sustained injuries. This
aspect was not considered by the Court below.
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
5. Though vakalath is filed, there is no representation on
behalf of the respondents.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the entire material on record.
7. The two contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant is that there is no employer employee
relationship and the accident had not taken place during the
course of employment. This Court is not able to appreciate
both these arguments. It is the case of the claimants that
while deceased was in the course of employment, he died.
According to the appellant, the working hours are between
8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and the deceased died at 5.30 p.m.,
which is not during the course of employment. This Court is
not able to appreciate the said contention. If it is their case
that after 4.00 p.m. they will not let any of the employees to
stay in the coffee plant, to prove the same, they have to
adduce the evidence and no such evidence is adduced. Hence,
this Court is of the view that the accident had happened during
the course of employment and Court below had rightly came to
the conclusion. Coming to the relationship of employer and
NC: 2023:KHC:45804
employee, the evidence of RWs-2 and 3 reveals that both
Melgundi estate and Olagundi estate are under the same
administration so on that count also, this Court cannot
appreciate the contention and as per the admission of the
owner, there is employer and employee relationship between
the deceased and the appellant. In view of the same, this
Court finds no reasons to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the
order passed by this Court forthwith without any
delay.
ii. No costs.
In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.1/2022
does not survive for consideration and is accordingly,
disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
MH/-
CT:SNN
