Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Smt.Sabera Begum And Ors on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:413
MFA No. 202484 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202484 OF 2018 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
THROUGH ATHORISED SIGNOTORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SABERA BEGUM W/O SYED HANEEF
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK.
2. SRI. SYED IRFAN S/O SYED HANEEF
Digitally signed AGE: 33 YEARS OCC: NIL
by
KHAJAAMEEN 3. KANIJA FATHIMA D/O SYED HANEEF
L MALAGHAN
Location: High
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK.
Court of
Karnataka 4. SRI. SYED YOUNUS S/O SYED HANEEF
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
5. SRI. SYED SULEMAN S/O SYED HANEEF
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O. MIG 2/64/KHB COLONY,
YARAMARS CAMP, RAICHUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R5 ARE SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:413
MFA No. 202484 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 (1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED 02.01.2018
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER OF WORKMAN COMPENSATION IN
ECA.NO.12/2016, BY REJECTING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTS / CLAIMANTS BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 02.01.2018 passed in ECA.No.12/2016 by the
Tribunal.
02. The respondents have filed the application
under Section 3 read with Section 22 of the Employees
Compensation Act, seeking compensation for the death of
the deceased - Syed Haneef.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:413
03. It is the case of the legal representatives of the
deceased - Syed Haneef that the deceased was the driver
of the Bus and he was employed by the appellant and was
working as driver as on the date of incident. It is stated
that on 03.01.2016 the deceased was working as driver in
the said vehicle as per the instructions given by the
appellant and he was driving the said bus from Raichur to
Bangalore and while returning from Bangalore to Raichur,
when they reached near Challikere, suddenly he suffered
pain in the heart. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital
where he was declared as dead. As he died during the
course of the employment, the employees is liable to pay
the compensation and filed the application for
compensation.
04. The Tribunal had given a finding that the
respondents have produced Ex.P.1 - Long Sheet dated
02.01.2016, Ex.P.2 - attested copy of out-register and
Ex.P.3 - attested copy of the in-register. The appellant has
not disputed contents of Exs.P.1 to 3. The content of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:413
Exs.P.1 to 3 goes to show that the deceased was the
driver of the bus as on the date of incident and died due to
heart attack. The Tribunal has given a finding that he has
suffered a heart attack, while he was driving the bus and
died. As the incident had happed during the course of the
employment, the appellant is liable to pay the
compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal had granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.5,42,240/-.
05. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the deceased died due to heart
attack and it cannot be considered that the incident had
happened during the course of employment, unless and
until the incident happens during the course of
employment, the employer is not liable to pay the
compensation. The Tribunal has wrongly saddled the
liability on the employee.
06. Though, notice is served on the respondents, no
Vakalath is filed on their behalf.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:413
07. The appeal is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
i. Whether the Commissioner of the Workmen's
Compensation right in holding that the death
occurred due to stress and strain in the course of
employment.?
ii. Whether the Commissioner was right in awarding the
such a huge amount of compensation of
Rs.5,42,240/-.?
iii. Whether the Commissioner of the Workmen's
Compensation is right in awarding compensation at
such higher rate of interest.?
08. There is no dispute about the fact that on the
date of incident, as per Exs.P.1 to 3 which are also
admitted by the appellant herein i.e., employee that the
deceased was driving the vehicle. While driving the vehicle
he suffered heart attack and died. Hence, it can be safely
concluded that the employee died during the course of the
employment. This Court is not able to appreciate the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:413
in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly granted
the compensation holding that he died during the course
of the employment.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge
KJJ
CT:VD
