Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Mala W/O Basavaraja @ Basappa Gadada on 13 April, 2011
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.N.Nagamohan Das
MPA No SSO? ? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Present THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L. MANSUNATIE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. B. WN. NAGAMOMIAN as UNc 57/2005 Ew Cc) The Oriental InSurance Co pany. : Limited, Hub: Divs LOT, Thu rough its Reg | Office, Rep. By ts Administrat ive Officer, K Jayvarans, OS Appellant Seetharama Kao ala, aged about SO vears, * AS wvaraja | i Basappa Gadada, Lowe oe * 2008 ° K. L. Manjunath, J, delivered the followin &. Kum. Prajwala, aged about 5 years, U/o Basavaraja iw. Basappa Gadacda, i J Py 4+. Smt. Neclamma, aged about 60 years, wr W/o Linganagowda Gadada, Respondents 2 and 3 being minors Rep. by... their mother/i* respondent herein, . Respondent Nos.] to 4 are resid terits: OF Chethan Nagara, Dharwad. 3. Sri. Sadashiva P.Hallikert, ace deceased by his LR. S(a) Shashikant, a S/o Sadashiva Hal likeri 1, / Age-48 vears, Hallikeri Camp, Near NUTR P.B. Road, oo Dharwad. an 7 mS .. Respondents (By Sri Bos, Seng gait, Sri, MH, Fat Ac ivoc: ute for Sa) MEP AAS fille de inder Section SOC} of WLC. Ac e | 4 and order dated 25.0 7. 2605 JW CALP:73:2003 on the file of the Labour . O' Nicer ro 7 and Commissioner for Workmen's ~ Com pensation, Siub-Divistion 1, & i, ing corm pensali %3,94,120/- with interest at 12% pia. and di rectine the appellant herein to deposit the same. in rm ot This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Nat JUDGMENT
The appellant-insurance company 1s the legality and correctness of the order passed:
Commissioner for Workmen's Compeénsation, Mubh, m WCA:F:73:2003 dated 25.07.2005, whereby 4 stim of:
€3,94,120/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 an @ecount of death of one Basavaraj @ Basappa Gadad, whe died while driving the "
é ear of respondent 2, According te the claimiarits, Basavaraj a Gasappa was working as a driver.umder respondent No.5. On the unfortunate. dev ie. on 1.06.2003, he was driving the ". vebicie and at about 10.00 a.m. when tne venicie was
-Kakol on the Poona-Bangalore road it met with an accident and Basavara; @ Basappa sustained grievous
-infuriés.-Later, he died on 5.6.2003 in the hospital SEQ Was eclling a case of the claimants that dece: _ sum of €4.500/- per month as salary i MPA No. g507 deca Datta and ne was aged 35 vears. The appellant-insurance company contended that the deceased was .net.an employee of the S® respondent and it canno liable to pay the compensation. it. Preriranece ermnmany ¢haat dereaeée/l itese tonrldye be can PISUPance Company Lal QeCeasea Wes WOPRTIS es Obl . : aan .
mm Attender in SDM Engineeririg College, therefore, he-could. mot have worked as a driver-ol the. S' résnondent. The Commissioner by considering the caden ce let in by the parties held that ever. "chowgh che, decease d was working as an Atter dev rt SDM izineering College, there was no prohibition. for hit "toowork as-e driver after office hours he was working as a and that on the respondent, therefore, he was As. a woremen. Accordingly, compensation was © greait ied. 'This, orde sris questioned in this appeal, ' before US 1s pel pide
3..The main contention of the appeliai "thet the deceased was an emplovee of the SDM gineerimn 2005 'A No 8567 / 2008 therefore, he could not have worked as a driver under the 3 respondent. In order to support his case, he has-relied upon the evidence of R.W.2, who is an officialiof the SGM Sngineering College. Therefore, Ne requests the Court -to-
set aside the order by allow 3 o
4. Per contra, learned counsel for ihe claimants submits that R.W.2 has not disputes that there is no prohibition for the dece io work as a driver after the office hours. Ackording to him, the deceased was an Attenderagnis . Salary .v he was required to "therefore, aller office hours, he maintain a was working as a driver-of the 5 respondent and he was also Working as full-time driver during holdavs. Aecording to-vhim, when the place if was a full-time driver of respondent No.5. He further contends that when respondent No.5 adrnits "othe same and when the evidence of R.W.2 support the it cannot be contende MPA No S567 / imsurance company that the deceased cannot be termed a driver of the vehicle in question. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.
2. Having neard the learned counsel for the parties, be 2005 the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is, whether the deceased was paid. driver of. respondent No.5 so as to cover the wrisk of .the deceased under the Workmen's Compensation Act? . ®. The claitnatts-are-not disputing the employment of the deceased as-an-Attendérin the SDM Engin eering se that after office hours, the College" . it. is their deceased was working 'Bs a driver of the 5 respondent ~ and . he. was working as a full-time driver on all the 2 general hott da ys. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the owner of the vehicie. When there is no ~collusion: between the owner of the vehicle with the sedi or the claimant, the insurance company, just ige the deceasec was aiso working as an Attender in ms aan fy "RS nA the college, cannot contend that the deceased was not a paid driver of respondent No.S at the time of the, accident. it IS a contract between respondent Novs we are of the view awarding compensatiol pel Accordingly, we dismiss the ap The amount in deposit, if ary. iS ordered to be transmitted to the Commissioner, MPA No. Sa07 the -
2OUS