Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt Parawwa on 11 August, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
os oF i arlim agacaum, arad VM gree Pa ee ge rey --
oo . i Wa Send we ee OD = en pent é ~ ot * a oc ce oe C on om & fet ooo . co cad ot C ap <= ae nin \ oO 7 ' Pr of epee re oe a i a 2 pond me a4 stommy aria Bare Te el erase a Kum)
4. Master Gururaj Kumbara aged about O7 vears, All are residents of G Taluk:Badami, Pin-3587 District: Bag. Respondents 2 Represented by The first respondent. Respondents atari 2006 on Worsxmen Compensation coming on me a TO mo
-
f K 4 ensatiol ai n Com} ed.
os SPpOe c :
A SOF abour Bovo C 6 i ric i ther PO L Ls lary 7 i a on + a ratio t gis Reg ¥ = a> £ "
L ari e b st oF Almant e ele the | ane actor ar € fad tr obs a oo 1 Mot Sloe oe os Nowe! L
-
~ = we = 6 10% a én s TY CON Ps Ie 5 IE pasine was pavil cen 1g asa and r acto Nha fon poe _ 4 7oOt met 1 OD:
cle, bk .
I is Ve i a in
-
oc Si > S S he tie + u C Vat its th nde spo re 4 Le 5 es po ent-of tre -comr rem reports Were 2 Fa In the cross- produced at) -Ex.P'4 "and ~. examination,..she. denied. the "Sugyestion made by the Wat produced any p.m. hirekawna tyes husband we "eR ge j ae ae aa +4 oel ea lepsae a a i ae ea ae a LRty have been examined. Policy of the tractor and > Marked ensation has he Neuot Workmen Com del pep irse and out.o! died during the basis of the police report and al the deceased and thev are. entitled fo» coches petition p.m. anseofar < Tribunal fis persorial me Tnenrer ta nay thea enifl se ariant ely fen beeen e ne thee _the Insurer to pay the said amount with interest at the ay Pla oe oy ev eepel ren seu es es play rr yey cesar ae TA ya
12. Being aggrieved bv the ordey passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Com pensation, the. Inst any _ wa
--
~ 'ey = passed by the Commiss Compensation is contrary to law: the appellant contendéd°' thar Commissioner: for Workmien * compensation.oiv's contr at the de documents + the provisions of | poco) a om
-
Cae oO Svat on ov o we yon Pat Aven?
Aka! ect Statemel tne « unreported judgmer (MAMTAJ BI UNITED INDIA INSURANCE..COMPANY AND-OTHERS) learned counsel for rs, "we eo mint mond ee
14. Ono the oth er hh aid, . rearned counsel appe and also of the tractor oO net proms wot soe .) owen cas & gerh po pong pond lan I eon gro _ im L a C Ol of the appeals confirming the order passed nmissioner for Workmen Compensation. addressed by the parties and .perused the <order impugned as well as the oral 'and décumentarsy € adduced bv
16. Having beard the learned. counsel for the parties, the only point-.t! im petition contended "that while the deceased were working as coolies in the claim petitions, thev died during the course of 7 s- oy ar a ee reste ee 2 ae cy a rr _ employment. Each of them were getting a salary of Rs.3,000/- p.m. H that no document has been produced to sh ov; that thew were working as coolies under the fi we he was paving salary of © them, though Lo the owner of. the vehicle; admitted 'niat the deceased were working, ir | trailer as coolies, not involved in the while digging the. mada compensation. be decided whether the d eceased were the the first respondent who is the owner of whether they died duri accident ie. Ex.P.] Sit ased went to the Khanwale hilkto brin g the mud for the purpose of prepati conducted = ay Jake a Oh of the said complaint, othePolice panchanaina and:
red" UDR case and report was authorities' Next day, the Uncle of
-made a complaint as per EX.P.3 Stating that tre eeceascd £4 ing the mu d, a P.O is an afterthought o | course of emplovment. made on 31°" Januvart..2006 . resy whereas Ex.P.] is made on the date of the ricident».The:
Police also conducted the they had not mentioned anvthi ne about the existence of the tractor and trailer on ¢} coolies. In order to claim tl complaint has have conducted .mahazs the absence of the tractor and ob eos moa prow) course of éniploymen held that if the vehicle is OO né BO commection with the vehicle. Further in another injuries and died not on out of 'trom the-residence, it held that the respondent *diéd on account of the use of mofor.vehicle. "Furt! Court in a judgivvent reported in 2011(2) KLJ 241 cited order made in MFA supra, "When the motor judgments relied involved, the death deceased i employment. On the other hand,.while for the purpose of pottery died. Hence, the Insurer cannot be. held heble:
19. The Commissioner dor "Worknicn Compensation xarmining the..~£x.P.1 and the FIR, re-conclusion-that the deceased are the workmen. under respondent in the claim setition aid fasten the Fey * we i "
-
Cee ooh a
-) oo rong
-) _ ine appeals are 25-4-2007 made WCA/F/34/2006 passed Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Ba é side. No order as to COSLS: S Court shall be refunded to the Insurer.