Ramesh Devendrappa Huggi vs Arjun Mallappa Talavar on 4 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD E E

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY.;"2EC.1*AO'.  

BEFORE     _ 
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.L§JA_(}.«%§P«I_1.\II4.§'Fl-IvI¥!INIIA I I }
M.F.A.NO.4965/2OOA5"(WC)   ' I

BETWEEN:

RAMESH DEVENDRAPPA I-1UGC;I"' - 
AGE:45 YEARS,  _  
OCC:BUSINESS,  '

R/O HOUSE No.86,  _  A 
BHARAT NAGARKHAS BAG,  .. 

BELGAUM.  ' A    .. APPELLANT

(By Sri.RajeIac1;f:;. v5%_,ArII{a1i§Oti; ):
AND 1 E  

1. ARJUN MALLARPA.TA.L'_,AvAR,
AGE:4O Y'EARS.,I- ' 
O_3CC:N1L, '  _

 'R}'Oi,PANTH--BALEKUNDI,

. '=.TAL_UK AND DIS'I':BELGAUM.

2." ._ "AIIIRUT_¢MAI;LAPPA HONAGOJI,
'AGE:5.0 YEARS,
OCC:ICONTRACT,
R / O' BIALEKUNDRI,

 * 'TO: AND DISTBELGAUM.  RESPONDENTS

VS'EI'i§:Srinand A.PaChapure, Adv. for R1)

This appeal is filed under Section 30 (1) Of W.C.ACt,



against the judgment and award dt.05.05.2005 passed--in case
No.KAR/SR/100/2003 on the file of the Labour Officei"e.and
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Sub€l;}i1fnp.iy2,
Belgaum, awarding compensation of Rs.1,34;,"495f Crgitli

interest at 12% from 15.01.2002 till deposit aneliidireetieng,the°»

appellant herein to deposit the same.

This appeal coming on for hearing}. itil'l:€---.._CC)I1'I"t
delivered the following: 1   W, 2 --.  V

JUDGMEQ1U'V
This appeal is preferred by  "l.=':i' respondent before the
Commissioner for A V Workm.en"g._ Corriperisaitiori  challenging the
compensation aiyaifded  the 1%' e.re'sip'o'n'dent herein by the
Commissionerwp ro:f';»wo£;<m_é'ri?s Compensation, Belgaum, in a

sum of   

2. The main Vvcoiiterititsrlifof the appellant is that the 1st

 respor1gé:§lient~ was  employee of the appellant and therefore

 th.e'C,omrnissioner for Workmen's Compensation could not have

allowedp«theiiiievlairri'application of the 1st respondent. Therefore,

V the substainti'al'ii question of law that is raised in the appeal is

"iv.ii'co'riCerninig' the employenemployee relationship between the

 ap'p_iell'-ant and the 1-St respondent.

%

0'
la



3. Sri.Rajendra S. Ankalkoti, learned counsel efor the

appellant referring to the impugned order and to the 

of the parties as also the evidence let  bef:o're"l 

Commissioner argued that the appellant "teat,ego.riea'11yl'

stated in his evidence that the 1st reesplondient"herein, 

employed by him and thereforevlthe qulestioneolf_Ath_e"'app:ellantVV

being made liable to pay the ec,olmp_en,sation"cloesgfinot arise.
Moreover, the 1st respondent;¢.la:imar1--t:': has_enot placed any
documentary evidence  employed by the
appellant herein:  lvviltrilelsses were examined
on behalf  «i   the finding of the
Commissiionerlll '«i.ereployer--employee relationship is
erroneousl"-and  evidence on record. Therefore,

the impugned orderbe set aside.

 Qr1..V'tl1e'§% liability on the appellant. As such, the

  sulbstarliiial question of law raised by the appellant has to be

if '~--.lVansyiJered against the appellant.

}

. 1



7. However, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the

same ought to have been restricted at 7.5% p.a. frorn:"tl§ip:es{:Elate

of the claim application till date of the  

Commissioner for Workrnen's _Cornpen'sation--.lf' it v._'17hle.re'

afterwards, till the date of payment;-it iéz§'ii'l'l ha'v.eV"'tol:  

12% p.a. To this extent only,v"'*-the appeal._of_the"'appellant'V

requires to be allowed.

8. In the result, the appeal   part only in so far
as modification'.of«:jate olT_interest'~as'iindieated above and in all

other respects t1fi_e--.oftie_r of«t'liel"CoiA:1ri1issioner is confirmed.

Sci'/4
Judge

    .....