Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager National Insurance ... vs G Basavaraj on 23 February, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
M.RAos.636j20QJV6622QQ5\VC
1FA,NO.636 1/2005
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Raichur. Rep.bv its
Assistant Administrative Officer,
National Insurance Co.Ltd,,
Bangalore Regional office.
Subharam Complex,
\TO 144 .M.G.Road.
Bangalore 560 001. ... Appellant
(by Sri.Sanjay M.Joshi, Adv)
AND:
1. Sri.G.Basavaraj
S/o Kalvanappa
Major,
R/a Kengal Gram.
Sidhnur Taluk,
Raichur District.
2. U. Sathvanarayana
S/o Nageshwar Rao.
Major,
R/a Patvarn Bazar,
Guniur (A.P). ... Respondents
LU.
7--
(by Sri.Prakash Yeli, Adv for Ri
Sri.Sudhir Singh RVijapur. for R2)
against the
This appeal is filed u/S 30(1) of WC Act
award dated 26.4.2005 passed in
judgment and
ur Offic er and
No.WCA.296/04 on the file of the Labo
. Raic hur, awarding
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation
12% after one
compensation of Rs. 1.01,762/- with interest at
month from the date of accident.
MFA.NO. 6362 / 2005
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd,,
Raichur, Rep.by its
Assistant Administrative Officer,
National Insurance Co. Ltd..
Bangalore Regional office,
Subhararn Complex.
No.144. M.G.Road.
Appellant
Bangalore 560 001. ...
(by Sri.Sanjav M.Joshi, Adv)
AND:
1. Sri.K.Govindappa
S/o Kattanna
Maj or,
R/a Maski Gram.
Lingasgur Taluk.
Raichur District,
2. U. Sathvanaravana
Sb Nageshwar Rao.
Maj or.
R/a Patyam Bazar,
Guntur (A.P). Respondents
(by SrLPrakash Yeli, Adv for Ri
SrLSudhir Singh R.Vijapur. for R2)
This appeal is filed u/S 30(1) of WC Act against the
judgment and award dated 2642005 passed in
No.WCA.297/04 on the file of the Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Raichur. awarding
compensation of Rs.1,39923/- with interest at 12% after one
month from the date of accident.
These appeals coming on for hearing this day. the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent insurance company in WCA.No.296 and 297/2004 on the file of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Raichur, has come up in these appeals impugning the order dated 26.4.2005 passed therein.
2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under.
The case of claimants B.Basavaraju and K.Govindappa.
claimants before Commissioner is that they were working as loaders in lorry bearing No.AP-26/U-2977 helomiing to 1"
respondent and insured with 21 respondent-insurance 1 company before Commissioner. According to them, on 5.5.200 they were travelling in aforesaid lorry in the course of their employment under the instructions of respondent-owner. The said lorry when proceeding from Bellarv to Bana1ore met with an accident with another lorry bearing No.AP- 11 /U-2349 resulting in inluries to both claimants. It is seen that claim d petitions are filed by them contending that they have suffere in serious injuries in the aforesaid accident which has resulted permanent disability in their earning capacity. In the proceedings before Commissioner, both the claimants examined themselves as witnesses and in support of their case they also examined Doctor, who is said to have treated them for the injuries suffered in the alleged accident,
3. Based on the pleadings, evidence of claimants and also that of Doctor and as well as documents available on record, the Commissioner proceeded to allow both the claim petitions by to common order dated 26.4.2005 awarding compensation B.Basavarajappa, l claimant in a sum of Rs.l,0l.762/- and to 2nd1 claimant K.Govindappa in a sum of Rs. 1.39.923/- payable with interest at 12% from th 30 day of order till deposit of entire amount. Being aggrieved by the said common order the present appeals are filed by insurance company.
4. On going through the grounds of appeals and the finding of Commissioner in the order impugned the following common substantial question of law arises for consideration in both the appeals:
1. Whether the Comniissioner has properly appreciated the evidence available on record before coming to the conclusion that there exist relationship of employee and employer between claimants and 1St respondent before Commissioner?
2. What order?
5. In these appeals. grounds urged in the appeal memos is verified in the light of finding of Commissioner with reference to oral and documentary evidence available on record. The undisputed facts are that t respondent before Commissioner is the owner of lorry bearing NoAP-26/U2977. The said lorry is insured with 2' respondent-insurance company. appellant herein. It is further not in dispute that said lorry met with an -6- P accident on 5.5.200 1 involvIng another lorry bearing No.A 1 1/U.2349 on the road between Bellary-Bangalore.
6. However, documents available on record, more do particularly, Exs.A1 and A3. namely. FIR and charge-sheet ission not support the case of claimants, inasmuch as, subm several made in Ex.A1-FIR clearly discloses that on 5.5.2001 that persons were waiting in Thmanahalli cross bus stand. At has time, an empty lorry came from left side. The person who ns lodged FIR got into said lorry along with several other perso an and when said lorry was proceeding towards Bellary met with lorry accident due to rash and negligent driving of another , It bearing No.AP- 11 /U.2349. If contents of FIR-Ex.A1 are seen 1 clearly discloses that lorry in question belonging to respondent was coming from Bangalore. The cabin and the lorry was empty. According to person who lodged FIR he ents stopped said lorry along with several other persons. If cont ants of FIR are seen with averments in claim petitions that claim they 1 and 2 were working as loaders under 1t respondent and their were travelling in the said lorry in the course of employment cannot be believed.
-7-7. ft is further seen that Ex.A3, which is charge sheet filed ants were by Bellary Rural Police clearly indicates that claim said persons who were travelling In the lorry Involved in the afore accident. At column 6, which is earmarked for showing the at name of witnesses the name of both claimants are seen shown Sl.Nos.13 and 21. In the said charge-sheet it is clearly are that claimants were witnesses to accident and that they n Is residents of Molakalmuru, Chitradurga, and their occupatio ing on agricultural activity, If that is believed, then there is noth loyees record to substantiate their statement that they are emp in lorry under 1t respondent-owner as loaders and un-loaders show Involved In the accident and there Is nothing on record to between that their exist relationship of employee and employer claimants and respondent-owner.
says
8. In the instant case, though l respondent-owner daily that claimants were working under him as coolies on and wages of Rs.80/-, he has not stepped into the witness box to show has not given any evidence. There is nothing on record d be that there is relationship of employee and employer as coul seen from the pleadings or documents available on record.
-8-S
9. On re-appreciation of documents available on record, it Is clearly seen that existence of relationship of employee and employer has come into place for the first time while filing claim petitions by claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Except self-serving statement of claimants, there is nothing on record to substantiate their claim, on the contrary. FIR and charge-sheet, which are at Exs.Al and A3 dearly support the case of insurance-company. In that view of matter, this Court find that there Is no justifiable reason to disbelieve the grounds urged by insurance company and to dismiss the appeals. Accordingly, aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in the negative holding that there exist no relationship of employee and employer between claimants and 1st respondent.
10. In view of the above, appeals ified by insurance company are allowed. The order passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur, so far as it pertains to fastening liability to pay compensation on insurance company Is set aside.
till -9- In view of the appeal filed by Insurance company Is favour allowed the amount in deposit Is ordered to be released in of appellant-Insurance company.
Sd/a JUDGE nd.