IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA . Q
CIRCUIT BENCH AT D!-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 171% DAY oF_s.B:PrEM'BER}
BEFORE
THE HOBPBLE MR.JUTs"m_ c:E i<;vr§AMAN§~tAji"A.«_%_,,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A_E_{PEf1L..NO.?¥§§¥{f20f§%6.
BETWEEN: . A _ _
1 ZSHWAR BABUARAO HAJA R--E V'
R/AT KOYANA-.'I'RADEj3RS
AT PO CHIPfL_.O1Ei _ _
"
STATE; 1\§AHAvRA.S1'RAE:»N AL'I'Y"-- .m,QL31~éf1'«._.JAVA::i§f
Rs,62,659/- AND DEPOSIT THE sézixwfg.
TPHS APPEAL comNG.__ ON FQR'VfH.gAR:NG.'mI.sAA QAY, mum'
DELIVEREU THE FOLLOWENG--.._ 'fj--
1
The ap§euan.: appeal challenging the liability
by} 'fhe: Co1i1nf:;ViSV's.i91v1:Ter for Workmens' Compensation in
'w.cf;.wo,%LKa..%§;;1..:<5;s,R91}2005 dated 27/2; 2006, whereby, the
compcnsafion of Rs.2,70,686/-- to the
.VVV c}_ai111a1it[re%5'pi<srAw.§§itA:nt 110.1 and the iiabiiity to pay the same has
..fa$tefie£§ on the insumr/respondent no.2 to pay the same,
–t§’é appeiiant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.62,659/«- i.c.,
25% of the eompensafion amount, towards his to
in disposing the claim petition filed by respo11de11t.t1d;’
2. The case of the 1″ Iesp<1nt1:e:1tfisA~tE1at'.he téozfiiitjg
under the appellant as a cleaner <fi,Vt'_Vi}:1e lofty L'
08»I-1-320. it is further caee of that on
2/6] 2005 when he was tony as a cleaner
loaded with pots While it dashed
against the f"'1'§eg1_.No.xA-2?-2414,
eonsequenflytxe After considering the
evidence, " fasteeed the liability to the extent
of 25% on ttie at i.e., the appellant herein. Being
't1v:te's1é:1i<i.'V'9rt'1er, the appellant has come up with
pfeying aside the order passed by the
Cemntissiunerf "
arguments of the Eearned counsel appealing on
-. sideé perused the documents.
= it is seen that the appellant herein who is the owner of
“‘–ttfte_$z§ehiele invotved in the accident appeared thmugh the cmmsei
filed objeefions admitting that respondent Pie. 1 was working
fl,-:.: ,- R s
taken by the appellant who is the employer cf the
It is argued that if the appcilant being aӎ111p1qy=f%r b j
provisions of Werinnens’
books of accounts, the salary “;Motbt’
Vehicles Act, it is for the has take _:;1ppropr§atc
action he cannot Shirk {>5 Of course,
it is for the appcflaigii to Show
that 1″ msP0{:!d$fl.f5 In fact, the
appellant vehack: has specifically
pleaded »p’st’2§ie1mefit that 1″ respondent joined
service as at-%lcanL = ¢r”foi” years back and therefore, he
gould hakev issued certificate. The judgment and order
‘ that any orders ‘have been passed by the
the appelalnt to pmduce the books of
v ae:count:3 ax;:i’-31;.Eiér documents. Merely bemuscr thc appellant has
,, , fthe d<:)ct1ments,Thc cannot be made fiabie to pay 25%
" the- amount. Thc respondent 1'§'a.2/insurer has not
disputed about its liability and the payment of any
cfiimpensattion to the claimant. when one: the Commissioner
CL.»/"
comes to the conclusion that the vehicle was duly
the injuries sustained by 1″ respondent: is ” V»
employment, the entire liability is fixed
The xerox cap}; of the insurance tl’iseio$es; that. L.
respondent] insurer has E$s…1x(:){)_[ -‘ago cevee Veisk of the
employee and a sum of Rs. – te cover the
risk of the owner v_1e*f’;V”.§:e;-Spondent was an
employee worlditg VVei”eV:}.eaner and therefore,
when oncefthey to cover the risk of the
empk)yees;’v~.it is _insurer to indemnify the owner of
the vehicle Jliability ought ot have been fixed
“an ” respondent has not filed any appeal
‘cha,l’1e’ngin..:g judgment and award passed by the
w’;C.AV€§amiia££§sip:§§:’:*”‘ and the liability fixed on it. Thexefore, the
by the Commissioner for We-rkmens’
“‘V.§Z’nmpens?afiion directing the appellant to pay 25% of the
amount i.e., Rs. 62,659/- is totally perverse and
” illegal which is against the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record. fl
-Cy’ ”
5.. Hence, the appeal is aliowecl. The judgment
passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmens’
is modified, the liability fastened on the appellajat dfiggmg
pay 25% of the conlpensaiion amozjiii ‘_
Respondent No.2 alone is liable to u
amount awarded by the Commissionsf; »togé’ti1a:r
‘Mus