M/S National Insurance Co Ltd vs Zaheeda Banu W/O Rafiq Ahamed on 7 June, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S National Insurance Co Ltd vs Zaheeda Banu W/O Rafiq Ahamed on 7 June, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 LAB. I. C. 4228, 2011 AAC 782 (KAR), 2010 (3) AIR KANT HCR 884, (2011) 128 FACLR 187, (2011) 1 KANT LJ 174, (2011) 2 LAB LN 240, (2010) 4 KCCR 3023, (2011) 1 CURLR 428

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda

/12,
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 9/
DATED THIS THE 7"! DAY OF JUNE, 2010-:  L
PRESENT '  VV V
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE D   "

AND

THE HON'BLE MR..fUsTxCE'N   
MfsCellaneoL.z:'; I*'1'rsI Appeal   1

Between:

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE Co 111:) .4  "
BRANCH OFFICE,     

SREE RAMA      
2vA. PRAKASHAM RMED, '1>NAGAiR, '  
CHENNAH7   V " _ " " 
NOW REP BY RE*C1c),NA1;::Cw'1CE'
SHLJBARAM CQMPI)'%1}i .# " *1» 44;. " - 

M. G . ROAD. i23ANCA1.c;>RE'' «, __  .. C 

REP BY MS AITM1N%1s'1'R_A'r*;vE»_  "
OFFICER ' . . * e  APPE~3LI,AN"['

lmﬁ. 3121 s3R1sI«1AI1,A, ADV, FOR
 A. SR1 AM V1:NKA'1'E:s1--1, A1)v..]

:x_;:Ed=~ 

V'  Z;/\:I:4I_EZEI}A EANITE
--V W/G RAEIQ AHAMED
 AGE 3'  "YEARS

ff " M.ANSLiI2 AHAME1:)
"A(3';::A'1:3 YEARS

'._zAJ -' 

V.  :é<i)0R AY'I*2S¥EEJA
A(i3I~1 1 1 YI~3.A.I-{S

I _ 5))' 



4. SABIYA BANU
AGE 9 YEARS

5. N IHA ANU-JAM
AGE 7 YEARS

o. REHANA AHAMED
AGE 5 YEARS   _

27. JAMEER AHAIVIED
AG E 3 YEARS

RESPSNO I TO 7 ARE  
CI%III.DRI%3N OF I.,,A'I'E RAFIQ AI*I.AI\/I335). _
SINCE MINORS .  _ 
REP'E.'D.I3Y NATURAL GUARDIAN
MO'I'HER--RESPT.NO E I '

8. SYED PACHA   
s/0 SYED KAIEEXVI. SAB
MAJOR   'V 'V   
JAIPURA I\z1AIN«.ROAD 
NEA.R'1"1LA:5: P--;£_x_R:1_<     ._ " 

        RESPONDENIS

my. SR1  HKAREG OWDA. ADV. ,
« V  ~I«_'oR__ R2. 4 <.:--~'o R7':
 Rs-..s1§Rv:cE H/S[

'I'I*II_S MFA I"II,I-EDI U1/S 30(1) OI' VV. C. ACT AGAINST 'I.'I"II$ ORDER
I}A'I'I5J{) <4?/':'5/()£3 PASSED 'I.3\a.i'___WCA.C3R.N().I 34/O5 ON TI'"II3 FILE OI' THE

I-IIIABOUR--- O.E«*F1(':5:R AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN

C'OMPI£I\ISA"IfIVON"I*U_I\/IKUR I)IS'I'RIC'I'. TUMKUR. AWARDING A
COI.?.(§_.E3E3I\3_SA7I:I.'C}IV_\&I OI*'A.R.'_:3.3,79, 120/ ~W'I'I'I*I IN'I'I£RES'I' AT 12% PA.

 AIJREZAI, COMING ON FOR A{)E.\/IISSION, 'I'I~IIS DAY.

 KUMAR, 3.. Di+3LIV§CRED THE FO[.,,I..OWINC.}:



JUDGMENT

The appea}. has Come up for orders ".r:eg'azjdi.iig appiieatiiori for eoiidonatioii of delay in filing t11is 'ap';o.eal, = i'

2. There is a smaii delay of 2:2 'wh-ieh was "*i,i_ot objected to by Sri Patel D Ka1*e5§oa{dei. :1e.ai9i:ed for the' respondents 1 to 7'.

3. Accepting the expIaiia1_:io'i1'i the afﬁclavit accompanying the"z},}§pIic:2}.tio1'1i:We No.11 of 2006 for eondonation ojfde-lay; » I t

4. We hi?-1V':?'iE1k{i'li"*}glVI3.fi'"i(;fHi"}iEt;£'£€1' for admission with the consent c)i'1ea"i*..1_iecI coiii'i:5eiV.[c§'r1;he pames. ei':ip1oyec> who was \VO1'}{i'i1§._-§ as a driver ii. appears died while ~iie--«.\fvas'xx?ori«;_ing as a 'driver' sitting in the cabin of t."_1e vefiiielef The dependents had filed a petition under oi'. the Workmeiis Compeiisaitioii Act, 1923 [for s_h~o1'"i.. "UA1€ A017] before the Comiiiissioner seeking for eé.(§hip'e11s2ii.iori due to the cleath of tiheir breaciwimiez" while u ' ' V. woi'ki1'i.

5 [(1] 'MALIKARJUNA G HIREMATH US. BRANCH MANAGER. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, 632 ANOTHER' reported in 2009 AG} 721 [b] RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE us. DIV.

ORIENTAL INS. CO. L1'TD., AND OTHERS-1':reportediii; AIR2010sC1006. " "

[c1 'SHAKUNTA_LA CHANDRAK}1.NT_f* .. f1sI>;.zé.£«:OS';'m 3 ref.' PRABHAKAR MARUTI ,G/;\'.lR'VA'LI_ AND' ;VAfNoT:HER'_:" . reported in 2007ACJ 1. O V O V

9. While any ;)1*r11eip}e.z{'c)r _ec)'11e_1'uei"i1'_1g thag-A death has occurred in the1C'o.u1fse.Vc)f .er1~11p1oymer1t, it may be n1ate1'iaI to ascertain as' toOWhether'*t:11e--.de:it}1 was in the 11at1:1'a1 Course of eve11'::s;; o:*_ot11e1'wiVse and in a given case whether it was not 'in the,eourOse ofemplraynlellt but due to some other reasons also béposeibvle, the contention is that the c1arr11ar1ts had nof,"exan1if1ed any medical person to make good their ":11a_t {he employee had died due to the work pressure ah-di1:ot.Oa :1a1:ura1 ciezuh.

5/ 6

10. While in a given ease any possibility may exist. the burden always upon the person who takes up such defence. In the present case, the fact is that the e1"r1.pi£)yeée had died while he was aetualiy working, in the ifie amt'-3_ in the Cabin of the vehicle which he otherwise We cannot presume that either a i:{i€'.E1C1A"

placed in the cabin or the employee d'i'(":d.1"vfiLl€ t.o7-ls.r):r11:e extraneous reasons and not u"1v1.e(.':essari'i~yatdueV5 to the employment.

11. The driving job is uV1_'1_(:i'o.ubt_etily""21 Vi:~ej1ésio1i1 fiiied job, pariieulariy. to VCt')l'}}E'r1_ "With,«"'p_1fe--se1'1t', day traffic and other things. Theregeannoi. 15:'-Le" -a1f.i'y._ presumption that even when a person dies while._a.et.i§'al1y vt5orki1'1g; in the job that. his death :_~ne1~ay 1'1=:s§_t.""¢.b;e_due to'i.!----1e«"employment. but may be due to s'0ne1et4i'1:i11g.,vei«se«.,_°--Such presumption is nothing short of a perifersity. "'I.i3""~t,hefVVi'n's1.1ranee Company should have taken up ._ H2-it defence __t'J"jiat:?' death was not either in the course of ernpioyme..ni:aor not due to the pressures of the work which Ithexemployeiie was performing. the burclen is heavily upon 39/ /-"

the lI1SLii'E1I1C€ cornpany who afiier giving 21 policy to cover the risk of the employer tries to find out i,111i'.e1'*:able,n petty and cantankerous reasons to wriggle out of their liabili..'._','yl..yuhich is not befitting its status as an insurance ' Nationalizeci and having regard to the WorkmeI1's Compensation Act. which "a welfare legislation, such tintenable~.y_stanVds the"

public sector u11dertak,ings ii-n' light"~rAbvvL:1t more importantly results in ulriciiieli-.yhgirass-rrieiit to the poor claimants and wor}<_s'*-at the object of the Act itself. """ l M E2. in thepi'esent._case,"wh'e;'i there is no dispute that the person wiioppclieti »w:«j1s'lact_'r,1ally sitting in his work place i.e., 'CablI1y\Vl']ilI§.l:l1€Vllwas at the steering, there can never be any presurri_ptioii"*«t,hat:'death was due to some other reason. The VJiidgmentsv-._"relied upon by the learned counsel for the "Eris.L1_rai11_ee Compeiiiy are not relevant. for the present case. It find any applicability of the law laid down in these t?1ec'is'ions to the present case.

13. The appeal is dismizssed with costs. "_I'h<3 ba1ance.._(__)f the amount: in deposit before this court: to be U'E1HSTT}it,"CC:C'E'-f_Q_ ﬂ1€ Commissioner forthwith to be niadtz zivailabie foif ai(£§'JE--Ef.i'Vf3'»'1"l,if_i_'1"1 to the claimamis at the earliest: a11oiig'\i?it.1i'i «rjQs}:is; mg' I V V ' iJUDGE t"3E§GE AN/~

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court