The National Insurance Company Ltd ... vs Smt Bhagyamma on 7 August, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

The National Insurance Company Ltd ... vs Smt Bhagyamma on 7 August, 2012

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                              1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

               CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

        DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

                M.F.A.NO.10487/2006 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED., RAICHUR.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
AT ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
BANGALORE.
                                             ..... Appellant

(By Sri. R.V.Nadagouda, Advocate)

AND

1.    SMT.BHAGYAMMA,
      W/O LATE HANUMANTHRAI,
      AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
      R/O THIMMAPURA GRAMA,
      KADALURU TALUK,
      DIST: RAICHUR.

2.    MANAGER MAHENDRA TECHNICAL LTD,
      RAICHUR THERMAL POWER STATION,
      SHAKTI NAGAR,
      RAICHUR.

3.    AYOKATHI FABRICON PRIVATE LTD.,
      SUB CONTRACTOR, R.T.P.C. K.P.C. LTD,
      SHAKTI NAGAR,
      RAICHUR.
                                 2




4.    GENERAL MANAGER,
      R.T.P.C. K.P.C. LTD,,
      SHAKTI NAGAR,
      RAICHUR.
                                            ... Respondents

      ( By Sri Keshava Kumar, Advocate for R-1
           Sri Basavaraj.R.Math, Advocate for R-1
           R-2 served, R-3 deleted
         M/s Dua & Associates for R-4 )


     This M.F.A is filed under Section 30(1) of WC Act
against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2005 passed
in WCA/No.300/2004 on the file of the Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur,
awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,57,152/- with interest @
12% p.a. from 5.01.2001 till the date of deposit.


      This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Raichur.

2. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.10.2010, thereafter by filing necessary application came to be restored on 29.03.2012. In the meanwhile the 3 award was withdrawn by the claimant, hence, the prayer made by the insurance company challenging the award does not arise. Accordingly, to that extent the appeal is not maintainable and to be dismissed.

3. The learned counsel submits that the dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution which is restored by the order of this Court and restoration in its entirety. Accordingly, arguments on maintainability made by the respondent to be rejected and it has to be heard on merits. The award amount was withdrawn in the interregnum when the stay was not operating. Hence, there is no error committed by the claimants and withdrawal is in accordance with provision of law. The compensation awarded with 12% interest which is only the area available for consideration of appeal.

4. I heard both the sides.

5. I have gone through the paper and materials available along with the appeal. The submission made by 4 the insurance company is that under Section 4(A)(iii)(a), of Workmen's Compensation Act the interest to be paid by the employer and not by the insurance company. The same is not accepted. Wherever the compensation is fastened on the insurance company interest also has to be paid by the insurance company. Similarly wherever the compensation is on the employer the interest is to be paid by the employer only. The compensation itself has been withdrawn by the claimant.

Under these circumstances nothing remains for consideration. Hence, at the admission stage itself without admitting, the appeal stands dismissed.

The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE MSR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court