Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Jhonsa And Ors. on 30 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1682, 2001(6)KARLJ379, 2001 LAB. I. C. 1908, 2001 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1266, (2001) 6 KANT LJ 379, (2002) 1 TAC 522, (2002) 3 ACC 411, (2001) 3 ACJ 1682
JUDGMENT
The Court
1. These two appeals are directed against two independent orders dated 8-7-1997 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Shimoga, henceforth in brief referred to as the 'WCC'. When the first appeal herein is directed against the order in case No. WCA:FC:CR:16/93 the second appeal is directed against the order in case No. WCA:FC:CR: 14/93. Both the appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company.
2. The appellant-Insurance Company in both the appeals are represented by the learned Counsel Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, whereas the contesting respondents-claimants are represented by the learned Counsel Sri S.V. Prakash.
3. The facts as I see are similarly placed. That one Ansar and Nazeer, both full-blood brothers, died at about 9.30 p.m. on 21-12-1992 in a road accident near petrol bunk situated at C.N. Road, Bhadravathi when they were changing the wheel of the tractor and that they were claimed to be the workers under their father, one Rasool Sab, son of Buden Sab. It was the case of the respondents-claimants that both the deceased persons were engaged as workers/coolies in the agricultural land of their father and that on the relevant day, they were in the process of transporting sugarcane grown in the lands and thus, they fell within the meaning of the term 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That the respondents-claimants therefore filed claim petitions before the WCC, making the father and the appellant-Insurance Company herein as the opponents. That on behalf of the respondents-claimants, three witnesses were examined. It appears that the father of the deceased supported and conceded the claims of the respondents-claimants. Therefore, it was the lot of the appellant-Insurance Company to oppose the claims made by the respondents-claimants.
4. That the WCC on appreciation of the material evidence on record had awarded Rs. 83,192/- together with interest in case No. WCA:FC:CR:15/93 and Rs. 75,265/- together with interest in case No. WCA:FC:CR:14/93 to the respective claimants.
5. Having been aggrieved thereby, the appellant-Insurance Company had resorted to these two appeals before this Court.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao had taken me through the impugned orders under challenge.
7. It was his argument that the learned WCC did not appreciate that the deceased persons were not the workers employed by their father and that they were part of the establishment of the father himself and that he did not see the collusive claims made by the claimants on the one side and the father (the respondent 1 before the WCC) on the other. It was also argued by Sri Rao with vehemence that the beneficial legislation in the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had been misused to the core to resort to false claims by the respondents-claimants before the WCC. According to him, on that short ground alone, the WCC would have rejected the claims of the respondents-claimants. He had also submitted that the WCC failed to appreciate that there was no relationship of workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
8. While referring to para (9) of the impugned orders, it was also argued by Sri Rao that the learned WCC had wrongly applied the provision in [Column 1(i)(ix)] in Schedule II of the Act. It was also pointed out by him that the learned WCC had placed reliance on the said provision of law only to award the compensation arbitrarily. In this context he had also drawn my attention to the statement of the wife of the deceased Nazeer before the Police found in the records of the WCC, wherein she had clearly stated before the Police that it is their tractor which had suffered the accident. Therefore, he prayed that the instant appeal be allowed by setting aside both the awards passed by the WCC.
9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants Sri Prakash on the other side, counter argued that there is no point of law involved in the appeals to challenge the awards by the appellant-Insurance Company to resort to the instant appeals before this Court. Therefore, according to him, the appellant-Insurance Company has to be treated as non-suitors before this Court.
10. It was also argued by him that the learned WCC had rightly awarded the compensation by taking the deceased as the workers falling within the meaning of [Column 1(i)(ix)] in Schedule II as there was sufficient evidence to show that they were the workers engaged by their father for the purpose of carrying out the agricultural operations in his agricultural lands.
11. The other limb of the argument of Sri Prakash was that the very appeals are not maintainable as the grounds that had been made out in these appeals were not at all available to the Insurance Company to urge. In support of that argument of his, he had also cited a decision of this Court in 1999(2) KCCR 1030. Yet another decision Sri Prakash relied upon is the one in National Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore v. Balawwa and Ors.
12. While referring to the said decision Sri Prakash had also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court held that nexus between death and use of motor vehicle and further even a casual connection with regard to the employment is sufficient. He had also cited another decision of this Court in Chinnaswarny, S. v. Periaswamy Eeddy by L.Rs.
13. In the light of the above arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the contending parties, I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the WCC in both the cases. I have also gone through the grounds made out in filing the instant two appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.
14. As I see, the grounds made out in both the appeals are common and it had been contended therein that the WCC had acted highly arbitrarily to come to the conclusion that there was relationship of workmen and employer between the deceased sons and their father and that there was collusion between the respondents-claimants and their father before the WCC and that they had not produced documentary evidence to substantiate the case that the respondents-claimants were living separately. On going through the grounds as a whole, it does not inspire any confidence in me to say that the appellant-Insurance Company disclosed the substantial question of law that had been involved in the instant two appeals before me. Let apart, it is observed that, when it was the specific case of the appellant-Insurance Company that there was collusion between the opposing parties before the WCC, they would have as well filed an application under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all grounds.
15. I have also gone through the records pertaining to the case before the WCC, more particularly, the order sheet part of the cases. I have noted distinctly that the appellant-Insurance Company did not resort to any such application in both the claim cases before the WCC to contest the claims of the respondents-claimants to contest on all grounds.
16. In my considered view, the appellant-Insurance Company when it had seen the collusion between the parties before the WCC, nothing prevented it from taking recourse to such an application before the WCC. That being the case, I feel that it is not available for the appellant-Insurance Company now to challenge the impugned award passed by the WCC on other grounds other than what are made out under Section 149(2) of the Act. It is not out of context to observe here that the appellant-Insurance Company would have been cautious enough to defend itself before the WCC when it was very much available to them to recourse to by filing necessary application to contest the claim on all grounds.
17. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these two appeals.
18. Both the appeals therefore fail and accordingly stand dismissed.
19. The Registry is directed to transfer the sums in deposit before this Court to the jurisdictional WCC at the earliest.