IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 _ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 3X.S«:_'A'3Q'P}%I\INA'- 4' MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOI."65'§§gV[2£)V:C)'4,'.(I\/IE) :3 BETWEEN: BRANCH MANAGER _ . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BAGALKOT, NOW,' I REPRESENTED REGIONAL =MA_N'AGE~R, ' UNITED _1NDIA'I'NS,URA_NQE 'T CO., LTD, OREGION'IAL OFFICE, SHANKARANA,RAYANA4'v__""-. A BUILDING, # 25, ROAD; BANGALORE~:56O"0oI.. I APPELLANT " "(BY S31. :,.R,AV'INDR}IIK, I IMANE, ADV.) . ANDL II SMT;1-.,CHINNIéI\2vA 'W/O.BHEL§3MAPPA GULAGANJI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, _ OCCIIAIOUSEHOLD WORK. , _7SID;DAPPA , BHEEMAPPA GULAGANJI T 3; 2. Heard the learned counsel for the part1'es_.-hand perused the appeal papers. 3. The main contention putforth by Company in this appeal is that the f3i'IYp:lO}f€I"..4'ElI)>,(L1:A'(tf1l1:§1OjI'€é"j relationship between the 1st respondent i.fe_rei'o.re it
Commissioner and deceased mbeen
established. It is contended’tha锑t’h.e;claimantsiare none
other than the wife and son Hence, the
deceased in any the ..c_l_aimants and also
that of the 18* situation when it is
contended Cone under the Is:
respondent same cannot be accepted
without proper air-ailiahle on record. The learned
coi:1’n’Se.l pfoir.’:re»:spoh.dent dhiioiyever sought to justify the award
. passed. thyitVtheflCornrnissioner. It is contended that the
i’Covrnmissio-nerv_’vhas.3’rendered a finding of fact with regard to
‘ ‘tlie’.’Aii.at’L1Arep of the employer and employee relationship and the
.s.am”e,doe’s~not call for interference.
.; Rtfifflww’
4. Having considered the submission, the fact whi.c__h is
not in dispute is that the deceased Shivappa is the
1″ Claimant and of the list respondent. The
have occurred when the deceased Shivappa. was wo_rl<:ing ah
Coolie in the tractor trailor belonginglto 15i'_-re's»pondentC"
before the Commissioner on that
context contended that thevdeceasedl coolie
Working under the 1st respondent death has
occurred during the eognfr-se of claimants are
entitled to the thilelllnsnrance Company is
liable to the Commissioner
nodoubt hast'icorisideredil' of the matter while
answering issue a perusal of the finding of
thé.lCommivi.s:sio'ner'* iwouldllindicate that the Commissioner has
. based' on the contention putforth by the
l',claivmantsandvthe}=evidence of the driver of the tractor, who
' examined as P.W.2 before the Commissioner.
E,
swgf
5. In a fact of this nature where there is no other
evidence to satisfactorily establish that there was
and employee relationship between the 1st respondent, he
son, more particularly in a circumstanc’e”Whe*’n i_t ‘cla1’1n.ed”;
that the deceased was working as a coolie,”-the Comm.issio.n’e.r’*
could not have relied only on to
such a conclusion. The records jqdii’sc.’loselthat”ithere is
any other evidence, which had Vbeenf*teiide.re’djVto”establish that
the claimants were I also that the
deceased was lii?=’tiilr;.espondent. Therefore
the finding on is erroneous on the
very face of note of the fact that
the claimants had appr.-oac’hedii the Commissioner and had
boniafide their oral testimony was sufficient
should hes. more opportunity to establish their
ivciasve before the ‘Commissioner. Therefore, the award dated
‘ 20p{)4 isset aside.
e
6
6. The matter starlds remitted to the Commissioner for
Workmens’ Compensation, Bagalkot, to restore the
WCA /SR–28 /2001 on me and reconsider the rnatte’iff”af1feVSi”if’t to
in terms of the above, the appegll
No order as to costs. V V ..
£3: V I,
e * ‘
hnrn/–