The Manager Icici Lombard vs Sri. Rudrappa S/O Gangappa Badiger on 9 August, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The Manager Icici Lombard vs Sri. Rudrappa S/O Gangappa Badiger on 9 August, 2012

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

              CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

       DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
                         BEFORE
      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

                M.F.A.NO.30202/2012 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD,
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BELLAD COMPLEX,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI.
PRESENTLY BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL,
ICICI LOMBARD,
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
GULBARGA.
                                             .. Appellant

(By SRI SUDARSHAN.M., Advocate)

AND

1.    SRI RUDRAPPA,
      S/O GANGAPPA BADIGER,
      AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
      R/O LABOUR/COOLIE,
      586103.

2.    SMT. MAITRABAI W/O RUDRAPPA BADIGER,
      AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

      R/AT NEAR BOMBAL AGASI,
      INDI ROAD,
      BIJAPUR-586 103.
                                    2




3.    SRI PRAKASH,
      S/O YAMANAPPA BHOSALE,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
      R/O MURANKERI GALLI,
      BAGALKOT ROAD,
      BIJAPUR-586102.
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

( BY SRI BABU.H.METAGUDDA, ADV FOR R-1 AND 2
     NOTICE TO R-3 SERVED )


      This M.F.A is filed under Section 30(1) of WC Act
against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed
in WCA/SR/No.176/2009 on the file of the Labour Officer
and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub
Division No.I at Bijapur, partly allowing the claim petition
by awarding compensation of Rs.3,39,570/- with interest
at 12% p.a.

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

                         JUDGMENT

With consent of both the parties, I have heard the matter for final disposal.

2. The appeal is by the insurance challenging the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bijapur in WC.No.176/2009. The grounds urged in this appeal is that the deceased workmen died not 3 during the course of employment. As per the FIR and complaint it discloses that the deceased was carried in the tractor and trailer after unloading the sand. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner committed an error in not rejecting the claim petition.

3. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted to dismiss this appeal since the claimants have proved the fact of employee and employer relation and personal accident during the course of employment.

4. I have heard both the sides.

5. The substantial question of law is whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner committed an error in not considering the FIR and complaint on the ground that the deceased workmen was carried in the tractor and trailer after unloading the sand? 4

6. The substantial question of law is to be answered in favour of the claimant. This court in judgment reported in 2011 (1) MACR 163 KAR Division Bench, has held that the deceased who was on his way to the land of the owner in respect of agricultural operations i.e. fencing the ridge with stones, which is a part of the course of employment. Hence, the insurance company was directed to indemnify the owner.

7. The prayer sought in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment referred supra. Hence, this appeal also disposed in the light of the judgment referred supra.

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

Sd/-

JUDGE MSR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court