Karnataka High Court
D C Raja Reddy vs G Latha on 23 July, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
MFA 1476/2004
1
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALos3§é»
DATED THIS THE 23163 DAY OF JULY, "
BEFORE Q " !
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUSTIC.:3JI§£?.:.'S.F}§{l'{I. ': A
m.1I~.A.no.147§[_& T V4 A'
BETWEEN: V ' '
SRE D.C.RAJA REDDY,
S/O CHINNAPPA, .
NCL373/2, BEHIND SANDHYA' ' '
TOURING TALKIES, MABIVALA, " _
BANGALORE-560 055:.' " . 'V ..}'..A:§PELLANT
(BY SR1 J.KANAKAF';AJ;1::jA{}V.V)'"'« "
AND: 1 " I"
1.sMT.c.LLA'i9I¥iA,5'v., 4 , . W/O LATE ~.NARAYAPIASWA_!y_IY--. ' @ 1.AKsHM1HARAYANja, '-
AGED 28 YEARS. * "
2. SMT.;'NARAYANAMMI\. 'V W/V_()iLA?I'E BA1.APPA,.. .....
' . "AGED 6'~wEAgs.
* ._.B{}fFHARES_Ii3IN€} H3' CHAMUNDI Ex'r$NsieN.,.__B.3mJ1 STREET, RAMANAC:AR!;M, BANmL.joRE~RURAL DISTRICT. ..RESI~"€)NDEN'1'S " " '1"A{3§f"sR:1% K.'i'.'GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADV. FOR R-I 85 2 (ABSENT?)
" 2 THE?» APPEAL IS FELED U/3 30:1} OF' THE WORKMENS ..__{;OMf5.ENSATI0N ACT, 1927, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.12.-2003,
-- ?AS'S'Ei3 iN DISPUTE N0.WCA[§?'C/'CR-Z0/'99, on THE FILE OF THE MFA 1476/2004 5 'whether the Commissioner was justified in the appficxttien filed by the appellant seeking"
opportunity to cross-exaIm'ne the ciaimant +- to lead his evidence?'
7. It is borne out from the ieconis cmss-examined HIV-1 and has nt2t:vLt(':hVa11en"geg;t bet'-xfeiéjibne 't$efore" V the Commissioner. T};1at,<.).n when vvthevviicase was calied out. both the .We!12'°_: the matter was adjourned to u edvocate for the applicant. despite giving time the the Cornmissionexj had not availezi the PW-1. Based on the said sebmissen; passed holding that there was no cmSS'-examination and the matter was adjourned for 'Ve.=_V:ié.sp9fi'e§n'{*s jevigziencetttttto 01.10.2002. On 01.1o.2m2, an eppficaemfje«V:1§1é§r,'--1~eo;der xvm Rule 17(4) was filed by the 2 appetlant Ieereuiéittiequesting to recall PW-1 and provide him an t' its Ctnsswexaminc. The matter was adjourned to A It is seen from the order sheet that this application not been considered. Even on 09.12.2002 though the nppeflant herein was present, the application was not MFA 1476/2004 7 to appear before the Commissioner was not served on he_1:.__ The application filed by the applicant coulci not have been on that gonad. Unless the appellant is guilty of protracting the matter before the vforf meaning PW-1 and subjecting her'__for , not have been negatived. The ordeiveheet does stiowt that a fair and reasonable ~- thteuafivpenant to cmss--exam1'ne the claimant: I am of the oonsidered View consideration by providing fair to the appeflant to cmss-exagniiie evidence. The question raised for oonsidera1ig3ite«ist'a;iStKf¢Eed accordingly.
9. I1; ti:s.eIest11"t foe flzte foregoing, this appeal is allowed. the Commissioner for Workxnen's aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh consitiexathen eccondance with law. The Commissioner shall
-4 j;-fj1.§S%I§= TI10t§1'c.~:%;«:'to both the parties and provide opportunity to the VA to croes~exaJ:ni11e PW-1 and also to kaad his evidence. "'-tI«':Vh_ge__*§3omInissioner shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously possible. It is ordered that the amount in deposit befoxe this % MFA 1476/ 2004 8 Court shall be transferred to the Commissioner for Worlgxnerfs Compensation, Sub«~Divisio3:1 110.4, Bangalore, who 'ii_i\r§st me said amount in fixed deposit initially for months. Depending on the result of tinge tin»; is in deposit shall be disbuxsed to age V "
' judge KK