IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE \8""' DAY OF OCTOBER_,;r';2O.1V{i.'__;:
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE é
THE HONBLE MR. JUS;f£'€iE
MFA.NO.S5-?§}?--5 or
BETWEEN: ' '
The Orienta} Insuranéée Lo." LtL:1,, _ V V
No.21, Sarva.n12Lt'1g.::'i-.a"C'o1np1e:>s:," "
Hosur Main Road, 5.;_ 3 *
Adugocli, Banga1ore--38f;i
Represented by -the ger, 'A ' _
Oriental Inst; rance Co; ':LVtd;..__ ». .4
Regional Office, V =
Leo Shopping Complex} _
N o.44 / 4 Q. Residene3r._Road,
}3a:1ga1ore':5:eo 025. eeeee " APPELLANT
E , Advocate)
.. 1-V.' «._ V ' Master. Charanraj .T,
., S /'0 ._Late T.Tilak Kumar,
- j " M:'no$r, Reptcl. by Grandmother
-- And Natural Guardian R2 herein
é/
2. Smt.R.Shashika1a,
W/o.B.'i'harai-rararn Prasad,
Aged 48 years.
3. Sri.B.'i'harakaram Prasad,
S/o.Late A.K.BaIaprasad,
Aged major,
Age of R3 is not forthcoming inIthe,._ L '
Judgment of Commissioner. A
A11 are R/at No.116,
3"' Main Road,
Dobi Nanjappa Block;
Gavipuram GuttahaJii._,_
Bangalore. '
4. Sri.S.Jayaku,rnar;-. p 1. _,
S/o.Narayanap}§a,__. . '
Major, =: _ .V
Shankarapp am, n _g
No.837',"17:%;Ma_ir%:,"i is N
am Brock, Kora.rn.ar1ga1a,"'~-.__ a .
Bangalore. a RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.D.Ramesh, Ad_\focate for R1, R2, R3 3: R4
service held ~s_ufficient)
._ 30(1) of WC Act. against the Judgment
and dated: 28.9.04" passed in No.WCA/Bi
2/FC/.C'R,/132/v»Q2'g;;on the file of the Labour Officer and
V, L'--vCommissioner. for'Workmen's Compensation, Sub--Division--2.
Bangalore _. awarding a compensation of ?4,36,940/-- with
.. .jin.terest at 12% pa. from 22.6.02 till deposit and directing the
4. ._appe_11ar1t herein to deposit the same.
/1*"
3
This MFA having been heard and reserved and coming
on for pronouncement of Judgement this day, B.MANOHAR
J ., delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Oriental Insurance Company
aggrieved by the award dated C’
WCA/B2/FC/CR– 132/2002 passed
Workmen’s Compensation, _:S_nb–Division–Il,,v . v’Banga1cre’= -‘
preferred this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the ifollows:
The resp’ondents7-ggi’ legal representatives of
deceased T:Thil_ai{ a claim petition before the
Commissioner for._’;.W’orVk1nen’s Compensation seeking
§cVorn.p’engsaticn on accoiint of death of T .Thilak Kumar during
‘ve”rnp’loyment. The claimants have contended
}°””‘that the.1_Vdecca_s:e:dV.’l’.Thilak Kumar was working as a driver of
Qttalis bearing Registration No.KA–01/MB–6633
to the 41″ respondent. He was getting a salary of
,é~
34,500/~p.m. On 22-52002, while proceeding towards the
Temple in the said Vehicle near Kokkacla, on Bangalore»
Buntwala Highway at about 9.00.a.m., a KSRTC
Registration No.KA–O1/F-710′? came in a rash
manner and dashed against the Toyotog Qualis:
accident, the driver of the said vehicle ‘i'”;T_i’h’ilal.<"'VIV:{-ur'fiar
died on the spot. The claimantshpavell'contend.e'dV.i._tvha_t -the isf'
the sole bread earner of their fam_i1$fA'a_i1d.._gat tiineliof death,
he was aged about 24 years'-andlsotig;ht"fo_r'jcornpensation.
Workmen's:';_Cempefisation;'the 'owner of the vehicle i.e. 4"?
respondent hereinvvlilcdathaobiections contending that he is
the own.e}r o_f~ the oyoto Qualis, the deceased T.Thi1ak
Kurnar'was.,woIkir;vg as a driver of the said vehicle and he was
vpayingglihhirnuvapalaiiz of ?.3,ooo/~ and 3.150/~ per day as
batta. also stated that the accident has taken place
Ithpe "course of employment. Since the Vehicle is
"_'j-vic_o'§9'ere.;cl by the insurance, the Insurer has to compensate the
A«
claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as
against the owner of the vehicle.
4. The Insurer filed objections denying_.~th.rs:_u
made in the claim petition. However}: th:f:~2yh
vehicle Toyoto Qualis bearing.7;§s1egistra,tionV
6633 is covered by the insurance.:”E,t_ is for.”the:vc1ain1ants to
prove that they are the depeiudants’ of “‘tV1T:1:%;:”‘deceased and the
deceased died due torthe tor dismissal of
the claim petitions. <4 * it
5. On of the parties, the
Commissiontery * for Compensation framed
necessary. issues? ..
6.V’gV ‘Th»e_c1ai1nants.__in order to prove their case, the second
herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
u$»,__E4X;P.10. ttiiotvgrever, the owner and the Insurer of the vehicle
f ‘have’*not”1ed any evidence.
/$~
6
7. The second claimant in her evidence has deposed that
the deceased was Working as a driver under 4?” respondent
and he was paying salary to the deceased. She also stated
that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the
On 22-52002, While the deceased was proceed_i§rig”~to§.zs}a::ds« _
Temple from Bangalore, near Kokkadah ‘Highway,-:to_ Lhe”=
rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC the
said vehicle met with an accident”–.and–t’he driver§o’f..the3 saidt’
Qualis died on the spot. S__he has___produced .Fi’l?..v._repbrt of the
Motor Vehicle Inspector, also Driving
License of lthe-_decease_cd;i produced the SSLC marks
card of the d’eceased_ his date of birth. She was
cross~exa:mirxed by ‘thev_Insurer. Nothing contrary was elicited
in. _the lcr.oss– exarnination.
V8. of the pleadings of the parties, the
(3;)mmissioner”xfor Workmen’s Compensation taking into
consideration Ex.P.1–FIR and the report of Motor Vehicle
/5/”
Inspector and Spot mahazar, came to the conclusion that the
deceased died due to the accident that occurred.._4l’l*on
22–5-2002. At the time of accident, the
working as a driver and he died ..during uh’
employment. On the basis of the
the Commissioner, the Commissioner held thatglt’he”:c1’ainiantsVt’
are the dependants of the decealsed”p_:arid.._.also’based on the
SSLC marks Card, it was was aged
about 24 years 2 Taking into
consideration the-.g’deceased and applying
the relevantllly ‘Commissioner has awarded
compensativonxorf 12% interest from the date
of claim petition.” hon;-gh”the’ claimants have claimed that the
was” salary of 3.4.500/–p.m., the
“hasi_..~taken the salary of 34,000/~p.m. and
wdtaltingd t’3=O°/oflof salary and also applying the relevant factor
~ awarded compensation.
/5~
9. T he appellant being aggrieved by the award passed by
the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, filedfithips
appeal.
10. Sri.M.U.Poonacha, learned
appellant contended that the pas:-geld.’ ‘oy ‘£.lV’1EV.”‘.’
Commissioner is contrary to arici-. The
Compensation awarded by’ eiccessive and
the rate of interest awarded.«vi:§’a}so law laid by
the I-lon’ble was not a
workman On the other hand,
on the datieiof. deceased was on pilgrimage
along with hisfif_ialmpil3xr’ Hence, the deceased Cannot
claim as’i3, workxnariviinder the 4″” respondent and there is no
relatior1’s.hip_’of ‘r.nas_ter and servant between them. Hence, he
:*”‘;___sougljt’agforv A aside the award passed by the
_4l_i;_Cornmissioner and dismissal of the claim petition.
Ax
9
II. On the other hand, D.Ramesh, learned counsel
appearing for Respondents I to 3 contended that the
deceased was working as a driver of the said Toyoto Qualis
which belongs to 41″ respondent. While he was proceeding
towards the Temple near Kokkada, on
road, the said Qualis met with an accident *dlece_-asedull
died in the said accident. It is his cofirsfiiioh
deceased was travelling with hi-svgllfaznily .mernber;:,””i’1e”‘ was”
working as a driver of the .–said Qu.alis,t’whicli belongs
to 431 respondent. Hence, the’dee.eaSed–tiwas”‘a workman and
there is thehlaward passed by the
Commissionerand fofdjismissal of the appeal
12. We have “car<¥;f_ull.y»– 'gone through the arguments
addressed! the 'counsel for the parties and the oral
and docunientary"eVidence of the parties.
13. H ‘ttlhrsl’notlin..di:spute that T.Thilak Kumar was working as
a ‘driver oft,’ Toyoto Qualis bearing Registration No.
/SM
KA–01/MB-6633 belonging to the 4″] respondent. He died in
the accident that occurred on 22-5-2002 at Kokkadav
the accident. The Police have also registered a 4′ .
the driver of the KSRTC bus in Crime-N.o.’105’/200;3llfor’_-the ”
offences punishable under Sections 115.1.
14. The main argument of the lalpnellantllis. on the
date of the accident, the with his
family members to the claim himself
as a workman. _ entitled for the
Corflpfiinsatiofl: V.
15. On other have contended that
the deceased was _an.emi:’;l0Vy’ee under the 4th respondent and
“Varas”lv*2.&:or;kingg..as driver of the said Toyoto Qualis and the
ovxmer a salary of €3,000/-p.m. and 150/-
It is also contended that on 22-5-2002
he proceeding towards the temple along with his
*»–rnernbers, the said vehicle met with an accident.
AM
16. The contention of the appellant is that ._ the
Compensation awarded by the Commissioner is excess’ive~«.an.d
the interest awarded at the rate of 12% is contrary ~
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Ce-‘urt._._ It’_:t0._ the
mention here that the Commissioner letakingg ”
consideration the salary drawn bgfithe deceased, age” of C the ‘ C
deceased and applying .r.elevpa’rit*A _:”faC-tor has awarded
compensation, which in Workmen’s
Compensation Act’. ‘.jQf_1″t’l;1’eVeV’appellant with
regard to rate Corrirnissioner has
some substaneef Court in a judgment
reported .3″/.’17 in the case of THE
ORIENTA}; Lrn, V/s MOHD. NASIR
elearlyeyheld tht the claimants are entitled
for’: “tVl’ie’.1~rate__ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim
V’;.eVVpetitiorrvtill ___tl’1ee date of passing the award and thereafter at
pea. till the date of deposit. In View of the above, We
V ‘V ‘ — the following:
J”
ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in
compensation awarded by the C0mmissioner_.is_”e,onfirrt1ed.–K
However, the claimants are entitled to,’intefejst:pat’_th’e”1ja,te’Vof
7.50/op.a. from the date of elai.rn-.__.petiti.ot1’* till dateddlofl
passing the award and thereafter p.a;– date of
deposit. Z V
The amount in”de’posiAt H0n’ble Court
be transferredi’ _ for WorkInen’s
Sdli
Iudge
Sdi-_3___
judge
_