Syed Hussain vs Smt Kasturi Bai on 19 February, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Syed Hussain vs Smt Kasturi Bai on 19 February, 2010

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

ER  .

1

_IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 3.9"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE BSREENIVASE GOW'LD"AL.

M.F.A.NO.1642/2007 {WCT

BETWEEN
SYED HUSSAIN 

S/O DILDAR HUSSAIN  

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS  S    A
OCC: RAILWAY STATION CANTEEN O'W[_\lE.RV  

VEGETABLE MARKET A.REA".AT" VAWADTN A A = 
TALUK: CHITA.RL_JR_  L   
DISTRICT:4G.uLBARc3.A'~.58,5 225   APPELLANT
(By S.m£..HiEMA.,L;.k;'.:v'FOR"SriERAPPARAO, ADV.,)

AND L  A  T 
E SMT._ e%:ASTuLR13BAO1" 
W/O LAT'E A:v.:AL.ARRA

 'AGED ABQ_UT 31'YEARS
 "«:.OcVc:.,L'HOuSEH.OLD

' R}'AT_JAl_V|BUVEER TALLJ, WADI

  LT'ALu{<:Y: AVCHITAPUR
 D DIST,RIr:;T;"' GULBARGA-585 225

 D,11'L1RA4::é<LJMAR
S/O LATE AMALAPPA

 A  AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS [MINOR]

A  VVINOD

S/O LATE AMALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS [MINOR]

4. PAVITHRA
D/O LATE AMALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS [MINOR]

¥~'é*:«



2

R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS UNDER THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER/
R1/SIVIT KASTURI BAI

S. MALLAPPA
S/O LINGAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/AT JAMABANDHI, TQ: JEWARGI

DISTRICT: GULBARGA--585 310  RE$;PONi3..E:iKi1'T_7S

(By Sri P VILASKUEVIAR, ADV., FORQRIV)' 

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 3Q-(I)OFw.c_..A§CTiA'GA;INi-:T 

THE ORDER DATED 28/11/O6 PAS.__SED~I..|\i w,cA. NFO;6;FEQ6vF:tOr'u
THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AI"'J_D"'COMMISSI'ONER"FOP,

WORKMEN cOMRENsATIO_N«--,._V.1 GU.|_B/«XRGAA {ﬁ=D.I\/I.SIO|\i,. I *

GULBARGA,  "'g:.i;vARTDIrs:1O1":   FFCQYMPENSATION OF
RS.2,96,4Q'C,f:__W11}-I"I¥\iTERESYT  12% P.A.
,iTHIs':"'M'"pggFt:;E.OMI'r»:.O' i')i~'~¢_FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY,a_THE _COJt_,i.RT'DEL.I1VE1RED1-THE FOL.LOWING:~
 ' T "   M E N T

_ The'*appe|ia.nt'.§gg.'i9ieved by the award of the Labour

 O.ffii:e;__L1'and Co'rnmissioner for workmen Compensation,

 Ejuiiigarga :,[3Fi:\:1:isi.on, Gulbarga dated 28.11.2006 in awarding

.'coErIpensa?t_i_nn of Rs.2,96,400/~ with interest at 12% pa

 has preferred this appeal.

2. Respondents No.2 to 4 hereinafter referred to

A as 'Claimants' contending that the deceased Amaéappa, who is husband of respondent No.1 and father of 3 respondent Nos.2 to 4. While he was carrying demolition work of the building belonging to the appeilant under his coiitractor, died in the course of and out of em-'p'ioié"iﬁaéi}t, filed a claim petition before the Commissifo:'ner.i:se'eiﬁi.'ngS compensation. Notice to the 5"' re's'ponde"nt with.

3. The claimantsll.in-».._ sup'po__rtv cases' examined the first claimant a.s--iV§"\i'.i_. .1-and have produced as many as three docum'enats~, "w_hi.cl1 a're;marked as Ex P1 to P3. The is the Contractor under whom iiiolrking, did not chose to file pjetlition. Appellant, who is the principlegemploisréia. statement, resisting claim. Thegappeilalnt» ekamined as RW-1 in the claim petition ' " ibgenfo re' eh Commissioner.

Commissioner after considering the oral and dVo'cum*elntary evidence on record, holding that the nclaimtavnts have established that the deceased was a it :._wor.i{er within the meaning of Section 2(n) of Workmen V» ....Compensation Act [hereinafter referred to as 'Act'], died while carrying out demolition work of the building under the Contractor and the principle employer--appellant herein 4 died in the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment, has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,96,400;'~ with interest at 12% from the date of the death of deceased.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for contends that the deceased was not em-p,l"§'Y.éd--l.:,:by appellant as the appellant had :=,entru,stfIed~.,.th.e"--.d'e~n3.co.lition work of the building to the.-L-sf there is no relationship of emp4l'o3x(er_Vand--' between the tiﬁgirefore the appellant is not awarded by the 2 C. I 4' Hema L K, learned Counsel appeavripng uxfo~:rV,_t'l1e Claimants supporting Eudgment and aVwiard3"7:of:V%'the Commissioner submits that there is no .iV|le_gValivtVy'v-..oi'V,A'.in.t§'rmity in the order of the Commissioner, inxritingfi'n.te'rierence of this Court and therefore, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Appellant while filing statement of objections in 'V »-tihe claim petition before the Commissioner has taken up a contention that he does not know the contractor and respovnld ent--.Corjit.racto_:r and C " s. 5 consequently, he does not know whether the deceased was working under the said contractor. The appellant and contractor have eragaged the common c:o:snse% to 'contest the claim petition. Further, in the cross-exami'n'a't'ioifitijf claimants, he admits the deceased died~'i--nv-'ﬁle'l~pIa_ce building, Of course, in the l=.ater..tp1artat_o.f' examination, he denies that9th_e deathof not taken place in the vicinitylvlvlofllpbuildino';«

8. The Comrni..s"5iOrier{_aVli'terlé3refill consideration of the oral and«djocu:me*nta~ry before him has diealth of the deceased was tai<eri.:vv'plar:'.e out the demolition work of theA"loudi|ding~,.tVwhichiils"thunder the supervision of 5"' respo'nd.ent an_d"lapp'=e||ant herein. The Commissioner is that there was a relationship of .erri_ploi~,rer{andviemployee between the appellant and the de'cea.s;ed-hand the appellant is liable to pay the it compensation.

9. Further, the finding of the Commissioner that l " "the death of the deceased was taken place in the course of and out of employment with the appellant is based on facts if-gt:-.

6 and there is no substantial question of law involved, inviting interference of this Court

10. With regard to awarding of interest, t'h,e:njai;ter is covered by the decision of the Supreme case of Nasir Ahamad V. MOrier:--i:a'Iv--::f:nsi1i'*aruce"" 'V Company Limited. According Zito .t_.-his? decis.Eo'n,'""i'ifrt_er"~:::s has to be awarded at the rateof 12V%_ b}a. fi=om..yjthyeVVd_ateVAofy:* claim petition till the date of from the award of claim petitiorrﬁil _th.e date"*af-realyyisation. 1':l".* -oﬁrgcoirdijingMa"abpe'a'l'"i*s": allowed. The Eudgment and Aw_ard4_ of the."'Co'm_rr:i.ssioner is modified only in so far as interestisic-onc.erne'd. The appellant and the 5"' resﬁonydieiwt are Vllrab-!«e«'to pay the compensation awarded by thevCo.rn'n§i"ssio.ner jointly and severally with interest at i2'%é the date of claim petition till the date of award ﬁandv 9% p.a. from the date of award till the date of A tea"I'i~«sation. The rest of the award is undisturbed. 7

12. The amount deposited by the appeliant is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for payment.» No order as to costs.

cp*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court