IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 11%" day of November 2010
:BEFORE: ,_
HONBLE MRJUSTICE : V.JAGANNA'1'Im£A1\§:'f"-«.1:A4
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 9309
M.F.A.No. 9:339 / 2008 .
BETWEEN: A M
Natioriai Insurance Co. Ltd},-..__
Mandya Branch, through its»,
Regional} Office, No.144, .V
Subharam Compiex,"M.G.Ro'ad,.fl" A ._
Bangalore - 560 001;'--repre_sented'--ff
by its Administrative Office)?
Smt. D.Karthfl;a. -- .1'
.» ...Appe11ant
(Common)
[ Rao, Advocate. ]
A N 1:) : "
2008 :
' A "-1 31 years,
S 'iffueehegowda, Sampahaili Viflage.
Dudida Hobli, Mandya Taluk <31 District.
Sudarshan,
Major, S/o Sri Muddaiah,
Maragowdanahaili Viliage,
Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk.
(Owner of Traetor--'l'rai1er No.
KA~»1 1~'"I'~»0999 8: 0666)
{J
In lVI.F'.A.No. 9339 / 2008 :
1. Sri Nagesh,
Aged about 29 years, y
S/o Chikkamoogegowda, Sampahalli Villagegk. '~
Ducida Hobli. Mandya Taluk 81 District._....._ ~
2. Sri Sudarshan,
Major, S/o Sri Muddaiah,
Maragowdanahalli Village; _ l V
Keregodu Hobli, Mandya * 'T
[Owner of TraCtor--Trai1er No;
KA--11--T--O999 8: O66G)_""~..V_ "
{ By Sr}. forlR% 1"
in hotiyh-.a}:§peaIs}f )_ ' l _
Miscellatieous under Section
30(1) of . 'thee _Vagainjstll judgment dated
23.2.20osyx passedll' N'¢;st; WCA/NF'C/ CR.No.
30 / CR. 3 1 / 2007 respectively on
the of Vthe7l;;aFoo1ir»..:Office and Commissioner for
Worlaneifs lCotr1pet3_sat_§on, Sub--Divisior1-II, Banciigowda
Lay}o1iti;~ MaI1€iya,Vawarding a compensation of
.;;;§;1,3ilj§',oé*'z/-- and Rs.1,14,366/- respectively with
'i1}fere,S't.._atll1'2§/E: p.a.
appeals coming on for hearing this day, the
neourt delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of one and the same
order passed by the W.C. Commissioner, Mandya. The
3%’
‘- . ; ; lRes§pon dents
first respondents in these appeals are the respective
claimants before the WC. Commissioner and the
compensation claimed by them in respectV..V_:o..i”dl~.._the
accident which, according to them, is
occurred on 2.11.2006 leading _to…ir1juri_e.s”,’
by the WC. Commissioner ‘a.nd’_’_’icomp.ei1satic§-._divas
awarded in a sum of.
to the respective cla.imant.s—-ifirith’*».interest-.at~’i12% p.a.
The said order of the _i’sN§C,l;”iomr1ilissioner is called in
question byfhe in these two
appeals.
2. the learned counsel for the
appellariiflnsurance is that, no accident ever
tooili ‘place as by the respective claimants and. in
to,:estab1ish the factum of the accident, the
not produced any documents before the
Cporhlmissioner. No F.I.R. copy was produced nor
A’-array case was registered and no l.M.V. report
produced to indicate the damage caused to the
tractor–cum-trailer and, under these circumstances, the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation could not
3″
I
have rnechanicaily accepted the case of the claimants
merely because the owner of the vehicle sails along with
the claimants. Therefore, the submission ma_deV_t*i.sdithat
the order of the Commissioner cannot
law as the claimants have faile_d…to4
sustained injuries in the accid*vent’_’_which_d’v’aroseV::’fiuf:,Qf
and in the course of their V
3. The submission of thevV:A”‘ilearned.’connsel for the
respondents–claimant’s:is Of the tractor-
cu1n–trailer ha:s., of the accident
W.C.:’:Cornmis’sVi–o_ricr.’w__iVioi’eover, production of the FIR.
is not a”roequirement.o’f~.lai2v and the Insurance Company
also did not evidence to show that the claimants’
. ‘case is a false one.
of the aforesaid submissions put
foi*war_j’d’ on going through the order of the WC.
3 Comrnissioner, it is noticed that except producing the
“‘..i>\”roiind certificates and X–ray reports, the claimants have
“not produced the F.I.R.. charge–sheet and I.M.V. report
;
3/
to show that in respect of the damage caused to the
vehicle, he has approached the Insurance Company for
compensation. In the absence of an iota ofve\}*i«de~nce
forthcoming in regard to the aforesaid
enough force in the submission put the
learned counsel for the insurance_ACCvompa:aj}f
Commissioner for Workmevn~’.s Co’mpensa_ti’c.n””‘was in”
error in allowing the pp c1ajrn*’*va’ppiication’s’ ‘despite there
being no positive evidlence to of the
accident on claimants.
5. repas_ons. both the appeals
are allowed’ -‘and’Vthe_”ord–er of the Commissioner for
Workmevn’siiCompensation is set aside and the matter is
reniiityted to Commissioner for Workmen’s
C :Co:n1pen.sati*0n for fresh consideration and both the
~partiesiiberty to adduce additional evidence in
reuspecta of their respective contentions and the
2 Commissioner, thereafter, upon hearing the parties,
h”sha11 proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance
“with iaw, Within a period of three months from the date
of this order. fix/’
F
Both parties are directed to appear before the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation on
8.12.2010.
The observations made herein above~’:shaf£’i
any way affect the decision ofithe Cofiirriissionéer fofu’
Workmerfs Cornpensation on Ii3eri.ts” after _Afie’;:1rin;<;;§~.f:§ot:l;1
parties.
Return the W.C.
Commissioner. it C C it it
The anioupt 'tatefunded to the
'
.... C'
eke/f it