M/S Mylimane Estate vs Smt Ponni
2023 Latest Caselaw 2484 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                        MFA No. 4587 of 2015




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4587 OF 2015 (WC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   M/S. MYLIMANE ESTATE,
                   A UNIT OF M/S TATA COFFEE LTD.,
                   ARABIDACOOL DIVISION,
                   JOLDAL POST - 577 101,
                   CHIKMAGALUR TALUK,
                   BY ITS MANAGER (IR)
                   SRI. VIJAY KARNAD.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY KUM. NANDITA K. NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. PONNI,
Digitally signed         W/O. SRI. MURUGESH,
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH           AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
COURT OF                 R/A ARABIDACOOL ESTATE,
KARNATAKA
                         CHIKMAGALUR TALUK - 577 101.

                   2.    M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
                         BRANCH OFFICE,
                         VIRAJPET,
                         MADIKERI - 571 215,
                         BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
                       SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                     -2-
                                                MFA No. 4587 of 2015




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:07.02.2015 PASSED IN ECA.NO.248/2014 ON THE FILE
OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC,
CHICKMAGALUR     TO   ITINERATE     KOPPA,   AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.40,350/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ORDER AND
FUTURE INTEREST @ 12% P.A. TILL THE REALIZATION.

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



                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the employer under Section

30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

(hereinafter referred to as 'EC Act' for short), challenging

the judgment and award passed by the learned

Commissioner in ECA No.248/2014 dated 07.02.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.1/claimant was working as labourer under the

appellant/employer. On instruction of the

appellant/employer, on 05.01.2004 at about 3.30 p.m.,

when respondent No.1/claimant was cutting the coffee, a

stone rolled over her. Due to the impact, she sustained

injuries over her waist out of and in the course of

MFA No. 4587 of 2015

employment. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim

petition seeking compensation.

3. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused

the records.

4. Ms.Nandita K. Nair, learned counsel for the

appellant/employer submitted that there is no reason on

the part of the learned Commissioner in coming to the

conclusion that there is collusion between the workman

and the appellant/employer. For which also, there would

not be any gain by the appellant/employer. Therefore, she

submitted that the observation made by the learned

Commissioner that there is collusion between the

employer and workman is nothing but assumptions and

presumptions. Further, it is submitted that just because

there is delay in filing the claim that cannot be made a

ground to say that the claim is a suspicious one and

having collusion and therefore, it is submitted that the

judgment and award passed by the leaned Commissioner

is perverse. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by setting

MFA No. 4587 of 2015

aside the judgment and award passed by the learned

Commissioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the

learned Commissioner is correct in coming to the

conclusion. Hence, he justified the judgment and award

passed by the learned Commissioner.

6. In the present case, the alleged accident was

occurred on 05.01.2004 while the claimant/workman was

working in the coffee estate and hit by a stone and had

sustained employment injuries. The appellant/employer

has admitted the relationship of employer and employee.

The claim petition is filed on 14.01.2008. Therefore, just

because there is a delay in filing claim petition is not a

ground to say that there is collusion between the appellant

and the workman. But at the same time, no documents

have been produced by the appellant to say that soon

after the accident, the employer has submitted claim form

to insurance company and also the workman was admitted

MFA No. 4587 of 2015

to the hospital after the accident. The first medical

document is after three years but in the said discharge

summary document, it is stated that the claimant was

admitted to the hospital with history of the injuries

occurred before three years.

7. It is contended by the appellant that the

appellant had filed a claim form informing Insurance

Company regarding the alleged accident. Therefore,

considering the facts and circumstances involved in the

case, it is asserted by the appellant that the appellant had

filed a claim form before the Insurance Company

intimating the alleged accident. Therefore, the matter is

required to be remanded to the Tribunal/learned

Commissioner for fresh consideration for the reason that

just because there is a belated claim is not a ground to

make suspicious of the claim. Therefore, in order to

achieve substantial justice in the matter involved, the

matter is required to be remanded to the learned

Commissioner Tribunal for fresh consideration by giving

MFA No. 4587 of 2015

liberty to both the parties to adduce both oral and

documentary evidence, if they are so advised. What are

observations made above are only for the purpose of why

remand is necessary. Therefore, these observations shall

not be construed as observations made on merits.

Therefore, the Tribunal/learned Commissioner is directed

to consider the case independently on its own upon the

evidence on record produced/to be produced before the

Tribunal/learned Commissioner after remand and then

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. The judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner in E.C.A.No.248/2014 is hereby set-aside.

iii. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

MFA No. 4587 of 2015

iv. Liberty is reserved to the parties to lead oral or documentary evidence or both, if they are so advised.

v. All the contentions are left open.

vi. The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant, forthwith.

    vii.    Parties     shall     appear    before    the   learned
            Commissioner           on    26.06.2023,        without
            expecting           notice     from      the    learned
            Commissioner.

viii. The learned Commissioner shall decide the case and dispose of the matter within a period of three months from 26.06.2023, in accordance with law.

ix. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this order without delay.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KA CT: THK