Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayaramegowda @ Jayaramu vs Sri Narasimharaju on 11 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA NO.1295/2012 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYARAMEGOWDA @ JAYARAMU,
S/O GIDDEGOWDA @ SHIVANANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2. SMT. PREMA,
W/O JAYARAMEGOWDA @ JAYARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A KSRTC LAYOUT,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARASIMHARAJU,
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAVALLI POST,
HEBBUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2
DIVISIONAL OFFICE - 4,
2ND FLOOR, SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.H.RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2011 PASSED IN
WCA/FC/CR-83/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BANGALORE,
REJECTING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurer.
2. The appellant is assailing the correctness of the judgment and award dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Court of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, 3 Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-29, in proceedings No.WCA/FC/CR-83/2008. The Commissioner has rejected the petition filed by the dependants of the deceased - Raghu.
3. Certain facts necessary for adjudication of the case can be summarized as under:-
The accident in question took place on 05.11.2008. The accident occurred on account of collision between two lorries namely, lorry bearing registration No.KA-06/A-8813 and another lorry bearing registration No.KA-05/AF-3663. On account of the accident, Raghu succumbed to injuries and died. In the lorry along with Raghu, one Satish was also travelling. Satish filed a complaint. In his complaint, he has referred to deceased - Raghu as the Salesman. Based on the complaint, FIR is 4 registered. Thereafter, the claim petition is filed by the dependants of the deceased - Raghu.
4. It is alleged that the lorry belonged to one Narasimharaju, who is the first respondent before the Commissioner. It is further claimed that Raghu was working as a cleaner under Narasimharaju and further claimed that the vehicle belonging to Narasimharaju was insured by the second respondent - the Insurance Company.
5. The owner - Narasimharaju appeared in the matter and contested the matter. He denied the relationship of employer and employee between himself and the deceased - Raghu.
6. The insured also took a stand that there was no relationship between Narasimharaju and 5 deceased - Raghu, and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. To substantiate the case before the Commissioner, the father of the deceased was examined. He was cross-examined by the Insurer and a statement alleged to have been made by the father of the deceased was confronted and the said statement was marked as Ex.R1.
8. Further, the claimants also examined one Satish, the complainant who is said to be the eye witness to the incident.
9. The owner of one M/s.Arpita Milk Distributor was also examined. He has stated that the deceased Raghu was the Workman under the first respondent.
6
10. The first respondent disputed the relationship of Raghu as his employee in the statement of objections and did not participate in the proceedings by leading evidence. The insurer was examined to substantiate the contention in its statement of objection.
11. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record has concluded that the claimants have not established the relationship between employer and employee. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.
12. Sri. Shripad V.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would raise the following contentions:-
7
i. The relationship of employer and employee between Narasimharaju and deceased - Raghu is established through the evidence of PW-2 - Satish as well as PW-3 - the owner of M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor, who was using the hired vehicle which belonged to Narasihmaraju.
ii. The Commissioner erred in disbelieving the evidence on record which established the relationship of employer and employee between Narasimharaju and deceased - Raghu.
iii. M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor hired the vehicle of Narasimharaju and also hired the services of the deceased- Raghu, who was an employee under Narasimharaju, as such, the relationship is established and minor discrepancies in the evidence of claimants and minor discrepancies in the complaint registered by Satish cannot be construed to hold that the deceased was not employed under Narasimharaju.8
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants to substantiate his contention would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/S.UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. M.N.RAVIKUMAR AND OTHERS - ILR 2007 KAR 3543 and also in the case of THE MANAGER v. SUSHEELA AND OTHERS disposed of on 14.07.2021 in MFA No.6359/2013.
14. These two cases deal with the question where there was a transfer of a vehicle by way of sale and consequently, there was no change in the R.C. book. The question, in this case, is not relating to the transfer of a vehicle. Thus the aforesaid judgments would not come to the rescue of the claimants/appellants.
9
15. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company would submit that the relationship of employer and employee is not established in this case. The complaint would reveal that the deceased was working as a salesman as per the averments in the complaint and he never worked under respondent no.1.
16. He has further stated that Sri. Narasimharaju - the first respondent before the Commissioner, who is alleged to be the employer of the deceased - Raghu himself has stated in the written statement that there is no relationship between employer and employee between himself and Raghu.
17. It is also stated that the father of the deceased who is one of the claimants has stated that the deceased - Raghu was working in M/s.Arpitha Milk 10 Distributors. Based on these submissions, he would submit that the relationship between employer and employee is not established and the Commissioner is justified in dismissing the petition.
18. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the Insurer would place reliance on the following judgments:-
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v.GUJJAMMA AND OTHERS - MFA No.1584/2022 disposed of on 16.01.2004.
2. RAHUL AND OTHERS v.NINGEGOWDA AND OTHERS - MFA No.2776/2010 c/w. MFA No.5976/2009 disposed of on 01.02.2022.
3. GOTTUMUKKALA APALA NARASIMHA RAJU AND OTHERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER - (2007) 13 SCC 446.
4. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SRI.HARISH AND ANOTHER - MFA No.4375/2011 disposed of on 30.08.2021.11
5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.
MOHD. NAZEER AND ANOTHER -
MFA No.7447/2010 disposed of on 25.11.2020.
19. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and also considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner.
20. The Commissioner has considered the complaint which reveals that the deceased - Raghu was travelling in the vehicle which was hired by M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor and it is stated by the complainant that the deceased was working as a Sales Manager. The complaint does not disclose that he was working as an employee under the first respondent - Narasimharaju and the father of the deceased namely, claimant No.1, on the very next day of the accident stated before the police that the deceased - Raghu was working in M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor. This 12 statement was confronted by the witness during the cross-examination. He has admitted the statement and the statement is marked as Ex.R1. These two documents would demonstrate that the deceased - Raghu was not working under Narasimharaju. It is extremely difficult to believe that the father who made a statement the very next day after the incident would make a wrong statement about the employer of his son.
21. The evidence of PW-2 - Satish to substantiate the contention that the deceased Raghu was working as an employee under Narasimharaju does not support the case of the claimants because there is no other proof except the oral stand of Satish to say that the deceased - Raghu was working as an employee under Narasimharaju and the evidence of PW-3 - the proprietor of M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor 13 also does not come to the rescue of the claimants to show that the deceased -Raghu was working under Narasimharaju. The owner of M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor at the most can give evidence relating to the fact as to who are his employees. He cannot give evidence as to who are the employees of Narasimharaju. It is stated that the Narasimharaju has lent the vehicle to M/s.Arpitha Milk Distributor along with the services of deceased - Raghu. In this regard, no document is produced. The oral evidence of the owner of Arpita Milk distributor is not convincing in this regard as it is contrary to Ex-R1 the statement of claimant no.1
22. Under the circumstances, the contention of the claimants that the deceased - Raghu was working under Narasimharaju cannot be accepted. The Commissioner has considered all these facts and also 14 analyzed the evidence on record. Based on the evidence on record, the Commissioner has concluded that the relationship between employer and employee is not established.
23. The judgment and award passed by the Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB