IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT BANGAL§Ri4*i:.'« V.
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY 0? ocrosréiz 2&8 { Q
BEFORE
THE Ho:~rBL1:: MR. Jus'r:< :;E 1§e--..;$1§AN:;_.§%'~ . 2 " T
M.F.A.N0.3655
BETWEEN:
1 NATIONAL £NSURANCE;_COM.FA.NY LIMITED
MANGALORE DO, 'i'HRQU(3i~i_ ms REG1'e:1gmL
omen AT i§{3,144,;' SUBSEARAM QOMPLEX
M.G.ROA£), BAIJGAE-,O1F~?I§-01 _
REPRES»VE'N3'E.D.'BY" A$ST;A.£'rM.C)FFICER _.
DKARATH-ERA ' '--
1 _ H % % _ ...APPELLAN'{'
(By Sri : E g: 's$ET§iA:§p.w;..§aG; ADVOCATE 3
ms :_ _
1 Cgfiakaunfir %%%%%
_ s/*0 ABBAS HAJI
* .. 'Again '34 YEARS --
Rlfi? NoV"J~1V/3:9, KUMBALAGODI HOUSE
PERUVAI 'VILLAGE, VITAL
I3A:+r3*m.LA--1*.a.1,uK
21:-574243
2 _ 1§u;~iH1 HALEEMA
* V "--._W/{} HAJI M A SHAFT
' -- ..=RfAT NO 2/79, KUMBALAGODI HOUSE
PERUVAI VILLAGE, VITAL
BANPWALA TALUK
DK.-574243 .
RESPONDENTS
(1337 Sri K MOHITH KUMAR FOR R2: R-I SERVED}
MFA FILED U/S 30 (1) OF WORKMEZWS COMPENSATEON
_AC’T’ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER I}A’I’ED:4.8.2005
% Court, delivered the following; _V
PASSED m WCA:SR-392003 (NF) ON THE FILE OF’
LJ-‘sBOUR omega we commssxoxsxme pop we~m<5.~sew:G. V
COM?ENS&TiON, SUB-DIVISIONJZ, MANGALORE,_.'F§WARi')}NG'7–~. ~
COMPENSATEON OF RS.1,'?1,234/~ WITH I£~i'1'E¥2ES;'.i' ..*~;f1'=. 12%:
AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN
SAME. "
This appeal, coming on for
in this appeal by ietirxlipany, the
following been raised
for :31}, 3 .
acted perversely in
holding respondent was a workman
respondent by :gno’ ring their
and sister?
the Commissioner was justyiea in
contents of the admitted document. Exh P:2,
K V’ produced by the first %pondent showing
position as a user of private car belonging to his
kk brother-«fir:-£cu.v?
(iii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in not
acfmgjudiciausiy to analize the material placed on
T0 “m’e–p;<:_;s1*n 'rma,; " 'V 'V
M tiaie da.v." ?}1?=. "
?
ix)’ K16′? _’
L-‘ ‘.
A __i=ee:1 gorooed. Both the parties have relied
At the parties, the teamed Tribunal cannot be
stated that he had lodged first iI1forn:1atic1V1: fl’0.I1
misconception of facts. ‘4 ‘V
6. In a decision reported in 2007?_{»3}E_f3’t.A§A§:¢_i1
vs. menmmm op
Courthasheldas:- V.
'13. However, couéd also be First be noted that the document is the party bringing the
Saf7i£§.’ 0n be permitted to turn
_ round””‘o;§dV that the other contents
rest part thereof had not
It was marked as an Exfubit as
A both intended to rely upon them.
i*{i.’:. Once a part of it is relied upon by both
V’ to have committed my illegality in
relying upon the other part, irrespective of the
contents of the document been proved or not.
13′ the contents have been proved, the question
of reliance thereupon only upon apart thereof
and not upon the rest, on the technical ground
fly: ” L19-,_,,_ ,
‘ is esiiijsequent development. From the
claim petition, WC find that claimant
dfiszfiilg licence held by claimant his permanent
is shown as resident of the house ef 15*
_1_’§§spondent. The fist respondent has not given evidence
to prove that she had employed claimant (her own
that the same had not been proved
aeeordcmoe with law, would notarise.’
7. in the case on hand, claimant had
information and he had producedwsztrpy K V’
his evidence. The claimant
turndown to contend that of
are false. As per; ‘ was
R..-
taldng his Wife and sietets .loelong’ng to W
respondent. _ this”‘felt1er_V’sistei’)”‘to the house of PW–1
anotl1e1’*gsiete:-.. 5510 reference to the alleged
employment~» . i11foIIn.etion. The alleged
the house of 18* respondent Even in
brother) as her car driver. g [j}
-~\, M» “L. \. I .4”.
8. The Commissioner for Work:1nen’s
Compensation without considering .
between parties, ignoring the contentsffi’ ”
information and contents of driviI15g’ iicence,.:coii{h.ict.1of
parties has 1mnecessa:ri|y: V’
insurance company by stating…:th.at
has failed to discharge ,bursen* tor firopf east; upon it.
The View taken by the Workmen’s
Compensation _;I’mu*easonsbie:”‘ei1dopposed to law.
The 15? respofizient .. claimant are sister and
brother. rsew ‘ relationship it was for the
_ ” to Vlestiebiish the afleged employment by
a:a.V(éic’:11cin:.g’*.. cogent evidence. The first information
would disprove his contention that
he eras emfwioyed by 1% respondent. The driving licence
it it of ‘T and cause title of the petition would
‘ disciose that at the time of accident claimant was
‘4 residitlg in the house of 15* respondent. Therefore,
considering facts and circumstances of the case and
conduct of pa11:ies. the case of claimaht that he was
M ……..L
‘x’-3.11.1»./L ‘ V.
emplayed by 18* raspondent and had
in the course of, and arising out of
insurance company is liable
cannot be accepted. V A’ A. .’ V’ V’ V’
9. In the result, I pass «V
0RDE?T+,7°
The appea1 is order is
set aside. ‘insfirance company
Sd/–v
Iudge