1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23"'DAY or AUGUST, 2o1o,_ PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATHH"c AND .. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANoflRR'f} ' M.E.A.No.5652/2do6¢Ncj BETWEEN: A' A 1 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE go LTD PRABHU BUILDING; RRUN'TALKIES, PUTTUR "";.K_?} 'pf,*R BY ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFEICE UNITED INnIR_INSfiRAR¢E'c¢,,LTQJ; SHANKARNARAEANA:SvILbINS;;M.SIRoAn mm@mmmgm,;m_ REPRESENTED RT ITS REGISNAL MANAGER 1. :' '=*.* 'N "=" APPELLANT (By Sri :*RTE_RRJEO&T§ELANKI RAVI,ADV.) AND .}:VN/o*SRIVSHIvRRAMA HEGDE '3 AGED ARQUT 26 YEARS TO' 2 KUMeAPEKSHA I D/0,33: SHIVARAMA HEGDE ..MINoR OR33 MASTER ASHITH gs/0 SRI SHIVRRAMR HEGDE ' MINOR (2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I" CLAIMANT) <1/' 4 SRI VENKAPPA HEGDE S/O SRI DEVAIAH HEGDE AGED 58 YEARS 5 SMT RAJEEVI HEGDE W/O SRI VENKAPPA HEGDE AGED 48 YEARS 1 TO 5 R/OF KUNTALNAR Hofi$ES«n EAJIRE VILLAGE AND Pges A BELATHANGADY TALUK ' ' 5 SRI P MOHAMMD »_ MAJOR '~ A I in S/O SRI UMARABBA SEARIJ, R/OF PERARL HOUSE _*. .,L *. A. MUDUKODY_P,0yANQ vIDLAgEj,V'*. BELATHANGAQ¥'EALUK_ _-."'*:;. RESPONDENTS (By Sri : SANDESH SHETTYaT;'ADV2 FOR R1 & R5 ) MA FILED UfS 36 jig or w.c. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT «AND 'ORDER."DATED: 28.2.2006 PASSED IN wcA:cR--11/04 3 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMISSIQNEE 'TOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, _.D.K.»¥a SUB-DIvIsIqN--I, NANGALORE, AWARDING 6 COMPENSATION or RS. 3,98,8oo/w WITH INTEREST AT '12%fERoM*2;12,2o03 AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN'TbzDE§OSIT THE SAM. 'THIS APPEAL COMING 0N FOR HEARING THIS DAY, Vf_ MANJUNATH J} DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
Rn Tne legality and correctness of the
‘aoonpensation awarded by the Comissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation, p.K. Mangalore in
8/
3
C.R.No.11/2004 dt.28.2.2006 is called in
question in this appeal.
2. The” claimants lodged a claim petition
claiming compensation on account of
one Shivarama Hegde, who died. while .pn;o§din§_ %
the marble from vehicle bearing; NoQKaE2Qf§Q93
during” his course of” employmentn as iloaderW andvg
unloader.
3. According vtog them;*lon%g1.1l:2b03 the
deceased Shivarama VhegdeiVfientVfl§¢. Venoor to
unload the Jmarhlei in5 the “aforesaid lorry.
During lithe’ ‘ his employment while
unloading one_of.theVnarble slab fell on him, as
_.~a« revs{:;.lt_i” of 1iw1″zic_h__vhe died. According to the
lelaimant,’.hedvwas aged. about 34 years and. was
tfipv getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and Rs.50/-
Vh_ battat z’:h§ owner of the vehicle though filed
* :the statement of objection did not cross examine
l%_ the; claimants and also did not let in any
Vii”:-ggvvidence. The Insurance Company also did not
let in oral evidence except producing the policy
and cross–examining the widow of Shivarama Hege.
‘fix
higher side. Therefore, he requests the court
to set aside the order of the Commissioner.’T’»,.
5. Per contra, the Learned counsel’-«’f_o.._:*_.’*__i’
respondents/ claimants submits _ up
grounds urged by the appell:ant:_,,’are’.,,pnot
since the owner of the v’ehic1é._has
the relationship of maste’r°’a’nd_VV cross-
examining PW1 and evidence .
According to him, lodged by
one of the?_: working with
Shivarama 1 ‘ an undisputed fact
immediately’ ‘accident stating that
Shivarama”!-Iedgdeii’ “was working as a loader and
4…,-;1n1oa:ip:er ‘died.’ “on_____account of marble slap falling
don .chest”‘*,of Shivarama Hegde. This piece of
evuidenicel ‘ challenged either by the
*Insuran.c”‘ea ‘Company or by the owner. When the
_ V ‘ Qgemplapinant lodged an FIR, it was not
‘-anticipated that claimants would file a claim
“petition and as a loader when another loader has
sustained injuries and died on the spot, in the
usual course a good employee of the owner has
‘fig,
lodged a complaint. Therefore, whether deceased
was a servant of the owner of the vehicle is a
question of fact and not a question of law} 7It
was for the owner to step into the witness b§3~
and let in evidence that_ deceased” was mnctd
employed by him as a loader on thatflday and as
an owner he was required ,to “maintainf”certain”c
documents, who are all his employees._,g?or non
production of documents _dff the downer of the
vehicle, an adverse inference has ix: be drawn.
Accordingly, the said fioint is held against the
appellant.=’
6. S6 “fare as” swarding of interest is
,concerned, in view of the Judgment of the Hon.
“s_up;;-’eme pron-‘¢.1’i”v._;i.n ORIENTAL INSURANCE C0.LTD. vs.
Mofin,,”*–.iN1;Vsi’:§– fs.”‘vANorH.=~:’.R,(20o9 AIR scw 3717, the
:t_ claimants are entitled to claim interest at
‘cllf$é’%_p:a. from the date of petition till the
l*,rdate of the order of the Commissioner and from
it”, dthe date of the order of the Commissioner till
the deposit, the claimants are entitled to claim
<(,/
interest at 12% p.a. Accordingly, we answer
point—2 partly in favour of the appellant,M~._p"-.._p_d'~V.v
7. In the result, the appeal is
part. The award of compensation passed. lby’_¥.the”‘
‘,-.7
Commissioner is confirmed. :’wSo1″r~ar has _.”awa.rc1.ing
of interest is concerne’d_,”‘–~.the same d’is'{_mod.:’L=fiedV.’
by holding that the “‘entp.-fizled to
claim 7 92 95 filing of
claim petition’_:ti,_11 :t”h’e”‘order of the
Corrtrtaissionejp. 12% p.a. from
the date. Commissioner till
the date, of ‘
8. ‘l’h’e.__’ any in deposit in this
appeal; V “is V”o::de___re.d to be sent to the
“cozrnini s s :i_.o1:e’r_ ~. __
Sd/-
ZEUDGE