The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Mahananda on 31 January, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Mahananda on 31 January, 2009

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

m THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA cmcurr B:EN<:§iV%%kf1% j 

AT GULBARGA 

DATED THIS THE 31-"DAY OF JANiF1*é;t2$?L%(?i§09 %M  A1"  %*

BEFORE 

HoN*BLE MRJUSTICE Asﬂéiéj-B. H:Nch1Qﬁ;R;% 

M.F.A.N0.5426/2G€17,(WC:}_   '.
BETWEEN: A     '  
The New India Assuiazzgézj  "Ltd. 
The Divisional MaIiag;cr;"-V'  _ --  " _
No.10*R~'7 PB No.1-:2,':i2I=;§¢ Flame,  .% "   
Temple Read, ~Sa13~ga1';1csItE%:s§:<ai'i1,agar "  '  ' '
Gulbarga,    I
R:-zglanal Oﬁicii, N0. 2--B, 'I3nit3* _   
Building Atxntsxcg. Missiti-n 'i?:t3~:1d",--  '
Ba118a1ore«560 G27-. " ,   

. . Appeliant

"  {By   B Patil, Advocate)

 0 l&tc"*Pai1ﬂit,
I j - ' «. _ _ Aged 28 yegtars,
"  Housewife.

 " '     ~ dabai,

  Late Pandit, student,
A  10 years,

Xfikas, S/0 late Pandit,
Aged 8 years, Student



4. Ram 13,10 late Pandit,
Aged 6 years.

5. Prajwal S/9 late Pandit,
Age 1 year.

Respondents N02 to 5 are minors

Repreacnted by their natural ' Mather of petitioner No.1, W/0 late Pandit.

All are R/0 Santanoer, Taluk Aland, District Gulbarger» 3

6. .Bhcemasha,_ ~ S/0.Sha1a13i1pp;i , ' ti:a31,'"Cfj .' Age Major....OCz:;"{}i?§s(;e1- (if the' Tractor .VNo.Kﬁ-$2 ,. I .

R/0.S1H2£aﬂO0r,T-'§';-.--- ' ' District GuV1ba1ga.._ * . %

7. Tam1n3~nnappa,, w . ~ , f o.Sig:Ida;ppa Cﬁizlqhpﬁ, " , Age lviajtxt', Gm: Owner 9!' the 'r_Tm'ctor No. KA-32-T~6664, R] 0..?Sa11t'a§z1(}0tf;- Taluk Aland. Dist. . . .Rc:spoI1dc}:1ts _ _ Jlrﬁméétt Kzmar Deshpande, Advocattz. for R1, ' .A V. L Sriﬁabu H Mctagudda, Advocatc for R7) is filed under Secﬁon 30(1)(A) and (AA) «of " §:h»$.__'W'or1mcn's Compensation Act, 1923, playing to set aside , th::.._4jue:1*gncnt and award dated 21.3.2007 passed by tha '- 'H(;:1'i)ic Workn:1cz1's Compensation Commissioner, Guibarg, I}is£1'ic1: Gulbarga, in mac No.WC 55/2006. This M.F.A. coming on for admission this delivered the fo}1oWiI1g:---- Jllﬁﬁojf This appeal is directed tug "t_g)1'flA.(ﬁ'_.: T 2 1.3.2007 passed by the Commissiozxor for Compensation, Gulbarga " W'the Commissioner' for short) in I

2. The facts _ in Pandith was assisting in plougiﬁzgg. tractor on 23.1.2006. As the t1'aotorvo'§a?a~3A negligent manner, its rear whocl " _ Pandith killing him' ' instanoously._ 1*esV};:oiif;1sor~1i No.1 is the wife and the }\E_Ac-.\.:.i/2 «to 5" minor children of the deceased. The the driver and the respondent No.7 is the: The respondents No.1 to 5 made an "é:ﬁ3§lioo1jon "iI_19;ro1<ing Section. 4(1) of the Workzmoxfs Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, who by dated 23.1.2007 has awarded compensation of REM Rs.2,95,590/-. Aggriovod by the said order, this instituted.

:3. The learned counsel for the appellant me " V' following questions of law:

i) There is no employer ._T[z_'o1atvi%z)nship I between. the deceased As the respondent No.7 and father and son, the was _the«,ii'ootor virtually as a reprosent.e§11'v%§L'Vof his _féiﬂ1e1§--

ii) The i§:,has.: e:rVi'oo' "'in-- the interest from om: month"ﬁ"oﬁ1t1 1e_.V:d'ato of the accident.

4. The Ié:a_x":3.od" the appellant has also brought to; my €16 complaint lodged by the is stated that the snpenzision of :_.._tho to the deceased. This, according to loaxnoé for the appellant, is clearly indicative of ' of the vohiclo being vested in the deceased. QB}!

5. The learned counsel for the respendcnts N01. Vtg 5 and '? weuld support the impugned order. He has A' the judment mported in 2001 ACJ 1682 in United India Insurance Ce. Ltd. --\rs-j wherein it is held. that the death Tot' their father as 0001165 and the that there is employer and %'e;;;;p1:;yee% not constitute the substantial queﬁﬁéﬁl para- 14 of the judmem 2:. % "14. As I See, _.-ihge. in bath the appeals therein that the Lwccma higlﬁy arbiifarity to come to the oondusicn _Vwas"1%'a'fat1'anship ¢:f workmen and employerﬁpetween .¢,ieaeas.eg1 sons and their faxher and that was"--oo??z3e:id?a.LVbe€Iveen the respondents-- ciaimants the.£'r' 'faﬂ'1ef~~--befar'e the W626' and than they not fhe documentary evidence to Ike respvondents-clairnants were fi:viri_q separately. On going lhmrugh the gmunds not inspire any confidence in me to _ s'ny'£haI £533 inswm company disclosed the suﬁsfﬁyniial tgtiaetiiion cf law that had been involved in me i'n.sta.r_sf'!r1;tJ appeals before me. Let apart, it is 'pbserzsed 'that, when it was the speciﬁc case of the wrartmny that there was collusion A the opposing partiw before the WCC, they Tw0VuZd_.3'tave as wee'! filed an under section Ti'? of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the daim on all " ﬂﬁﬂ

6. The issue of employer and employee relationship'.-'1s a pure question of law. It mn:noI: be raised as a quesﬁslg ~., much less the substantial question of law in the evidence gven by the employer. Just «_ the employer/resmndent No.7, ewner ' employed his sen as a Coolie '*w0rl(e1;V_ 'it she ermneous to hold that relationship. There is no the blood relatives to be the l'I'he evidence given by the ﬁle respondent No.7 and the deceased were living separately. 'i:ircu111sta11ces and aspects of tlle matter; submission urged an behalf of Just bets "" Hess, the uncle of the deceased has ;:., giV€I1 the police that the supervision of traetoi"-was 1 eI;li:1'usted to the (lee sm, the same earmot V ' ' ' relatinliship;

ﬁthat there is no employer - employee 38%.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court