IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT BAN<§;§LQ1éVEL:"%
DATED THIS THE 0633 DAY OI'-':'£~l"()\ar'E!\4EfI:3I3¢_:V'..'."?.:i'J§V".\'fc'j} :
BEFORE 1 V
THE HGWBLE MR.JtJfi3~<:_:E NA.'AN2Aap'A
B EEN: '
M/s. United India insmande-;' Ltd. ._
No.2, Sundar g " Z
Opp. To S1}.buI."£3"Bl1$$t3'fl{3£ _ _ .
Ba::1ga1ore--Ni1geri_..- W
New mp. by_Vits"~l3é;:iu.ty Ma:t:a[g~:*.r,.
M,' s. Unif;edTl'fi:iialné;iiia1ict;"'Co. Ltd)
Regiona1':§)$_:cc, VM';c-~...12ca;'1 _ % '
Bangaiomd. . 1
Appellant
(By Sri A.M,Venlf{ai£:sh,V
.....
1.”
A sm..Ma;:jn3a ..
X W,l’g. ALaf€.Unies3:1a
abciufjywtrs
E/jo. Lat-:3 Umesha
.. about 4 years
‘ ,Si1_1<}e minor rep. by her mother and
Hatural guardian S}.No.1
are rja: No.119, Near Kuntamma
Hootagaili
Mysore Taluk 55 District.
3. Govindcgowda
S/o. Late Papegowda
Aged about 63 years
4. Smt. Thayamma
W/0. Govindegowda
Aged about 50 years
Respondents 3 6:. 4 are r] at
Managanahalli Village, Bilikeie Hobli
Hunsur’I’aluk _
Mysore District.
5. R.R.Girish H
S/0. R.D.Ra1:£12:s;hct%.y
No.1 19,. 1*»:-gar
Mysore ‘ : …Respo11dents
(By M/«Advocates for R1 to R4; R5-
appéa} under section 30(1) of the
.Wor}§:fiaénE’é:* Act, against the judgment and
~ _ _ dasg?d 09.02.2005, passed in
on the file of the Labour Oficcr
V VV and Ckvmmissiéncr for Workznews Compensation at Mysore,
jg___awa1ding §§%ompensation with interest at 12% per annum
12.03.2002 tzilldcposit anctc.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the
H V A ” delivered the folltwsrmg:
The Commissioner for Workmogfs i. f
awarded compensation fior thc.»dcoth of._o’nc zas:
result of injuries sufiercd by arse’ wkiof his
employment VA ‘A ‘ .
In this appeal. ~hag..»,%g,§ntcnded that
c!a1m’ ants ha}:-5 _that:f§vloaVtHVof Umcsha was a
result of accident.
2. I for the insurance
‘ . 3. wthe impuwod order, accident
Umosha died on 03.04.2002.
The Woxiczncnfs Compensation (for short,
‘inc ‘ss;ionor’j relying on the medical certificate issued
H Ofiocrfihas come to a conclusion that Umcsha
‘iii: izljuzries sufi’en-xi by him in the aocxi’ cut. The
Oficer, who had treated deceased Umosha has not
boon examined. There is no substantive evidence to prove
the death of Umesha on 03.04.2002 was a result of injurios
:9. .:3.QV* ‘7’””‘d’ *–.2
sufiexed in the accident that occurred on ~
Commissioner should not have read h”nr~”‘ .4
as per se evidence.
4. The learned Counsel fofifhe
also submitted that as _on ‘pf vvfvehicle
involved in the accident by the insumd
in favour of !–responde:’.:;. j bzefgigg ffoznmisaioner.
Therefore, ish” ‘i:’1o’£” Eiable to pay
5. In ._c_)f the ihis Court, reported in ILR
200′? KAR 13543 (i}i a¢sehaf’3§/s. United India Assurance
.i;ie£V Va? Mmkapimmw-” “”” “& Others), the transfer of policy
by of I-respondent before the
A”‘(iammissi§nerV be a ground to the insurazlce company
~ its” arising out of a third party claim.
””insurance company afier paying compensation
Ereoovcr the same either from the insurer} or
L» e transferee] I-respondent before the
_:A_£’-,U,,’.g’£::_.
Commissioner. Therefore, this aspect .11r_it.’V. K V’
rttconsidcrcd by the Commissioner.
5. In View of the fomgoiug disé’t1_$Sion, or tqfaa
opinion that matter the
Commissioner to ncooxd ag grhether
death of Umesha was a ‘pf by him in
the accident oc>c}51*:i1A*3§ _’-an ..
7. In %
The app»¢§ia1VVis impuwcad order is set
aside. Thc matter the Commissioner for a
death of Umcsha was a
rcsuVlt= by him in the accident occurred on
are at libaty to adducc further
The. amount in deposit shall be refunded to the
Oficc is dimctcad to send back reoenis
copy of this crdcr.
Sd/-~
Iudqe