Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Khasim Bee on 25 June, 2010
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED 25*" DAY OF JUNE 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.GQVI.NDARA§I'UL4U A 3
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAANO '.'8S£39 OFQQOS (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE C._(_3;--
BRANCH OFFICE,
AT CITY TALKIES ROAD,
RAICHUR I
THROUGH ITS _
No.44/45. LEO
RESIDENCY ROAD. A _ _
BANGALORE ---- 560925 A
REP. BY ITS ADMIN1STRATI'ifE'QFFICER,
SHRI. KJAYARALM " " ' ..
{BYEVSTREIV TIA LIOSHIWIADVOCATEJ
AND ; A
Is, A SMT. KHAS1 M
.. «AGED A_BQUT 36 YEARS.
W/'O. LACE KHAJA SAB
4 /1 SRI'.--N'OOR PASHA
APPELLANT
9.
LJ
AGED ABOUT '18 YEARS
S / O. LATE KHAJA SAB
KUMARI BEGAUM,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
D/ O. LATE KHAJA SAB
MASTER CHAND PASHA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
D/O. LATE KHAJA SAB
KUMARI. Cf-{AND BEE
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
D/O. LATE KHAJA SAB
SMT. SANNA KHASIM BEE',
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O. LATE
HHAJU ....
AGED ABOUT 1'{}"_YE§AlRS--_ %
D /O. LATE K'HAJA'SA13 H '-
KUM. RAJAMTT"A,-xi/BEE' . " A
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS A
D /10. KHAJA"SA_E. A
Ki;I1\ri.;vO1\/EOHVIILVI MUDAEEE
AGED-'ABOIJ"1f_ 10;Y'EARS
D/0. LATE _KELé'_AiA SAB
THE RESPOINDENT NOS.1 TO 9,
"ARE; RESIDENTS GE HOSAPETE
RAICHUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT
THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5,
BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER THE 15"
RESPONDENT HEREIN AND THE RESPONIJENTS 7 to 9 MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER THE RESPONDENT.
NO.6 HEREIN
10. SR1. KESHAVA EHATT VENGAL;
AOED ABOUT 40 YEARS S /O. SATHYANARAYANA 'SAS'1'RY, ' j' ACRICIILTURIST AND OWNER SOFT! ;
TRACTOR AND TRAILOR, I I NO.KA--36A~8899, V I I DOOR DADDY COLONT2 'V . RAICHUR A t RESPONDENTS
{BY BASAVARAJ MIATVHEV.VFOR"~C_HAif-IEORASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO; TO 6) THIS MFA IS"-EIILET)-__UNDE~R SECTION 30{1}{A) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST I'~IJUD'nG'I'»'JEVNTAV AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2005 PASSED WCA _NQ.121:2004 ON THE PILE OF THE LABOUR :_vOFFICERIAN13 ..C:QI\zIIVIISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, IXWARITEIFII} COIVIPENSATION OF RS2, 19,594/-- WITH «_INil_'E}lE}ST AT I"'2._<>/5' AND DIRECTINC THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO THE SAME.
6 i,1'aci,or / traiior was shifting the mud for formation of the road. So, the burden is on the claimant to lead the evidence. atleast to prove that the contention in the FER to the extent which is inconsistent with the case of the claimant is not true. In of petitioner not even an iota of challenge is found on 'the of FER. V V V
5. Learned Advocate for the contending that the cases under cannot be appreciated in of«"th'e"'iaw, social approach has to be given as the protect a weaker section in diffieiilt there is no doubt about the object, this Court'iinhAgod__i S~_a'rig¥anna's case [1969 Mysore 12) has he1,d"ei(ideric§e is_"recoi'd'e'd~ tofind out truth. to rely on a portion of the cornpiaint, the next _po1'tion* of inateriai, claimant do not want to intend. If that vin"t:h.e evidence, placed before the Commissioner, it could V.'"a.haVe.igeenddstated. if it was st.ated then, the company could have got /"' W