1 MFA N0.5656/ 2%6
m THE men scum' 01:' KARNATAKA
CIRCUET BENCH AT DI-{ARWAD
DATED THES THE 32» DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 H
BEFORE V
THE HONBLE MR JUSTECE 1~1.G.RAM§5$§~;-..: V'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL;'N¢.'5e5§;£2oQ5fwé:;;
BETWEEN: " V'
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE cc:-;TV_z;':?;3.,
HUBLI, BY yrs REGIONAL oF1:':cE,~--._ "
2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, _
P.KALiNGA RAD RoAD{M:ss;oN R5;'».9;%_','--
BANGALORE 550 027, '
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIoNAvL%Mai§5;§EEi;[;,; A' ..APPELLAN'I'
(BY SR1 f%AVI G. SEE P.B.RAJU, ADVS.}
AND:
w ,,1. s._:vI'i? J:§LE-$.31; ..... 14 »
* «wjo SR': BASHASAB OLEKAR'
' ,AG.EI)» ABOUT 35 YEARS,
I-.2{_E1SI'DEN_T"OF.RAMA?URA,
=I§~I1';.?,BLE *;:n,.'1;.§Ji~;;; "
V .2. sé':~AE.1f2UL,"§4UNAIv,
SIC? SRI'[.ISMAILSAB UPPIN,
..QWNEE' OF GODS RIKSHAW
E§E2'~E RING REG. N0,KA~31~31?«4
" ':<«2....L';.§:z~r1' op' BHADRAPURA,
POST', MUNDAGODA TALUK. .. R'ESF"'€}NDEN'FS
"gm SRE DINESH MKULKARNE, FOR Ra. sgrmca TO R1 HELD
4. 'SUFF'I{)IEN'I'}
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF' W33. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
CERDER' DATED 2'?,Q.'.2{)06 PASSES iN WCA:NF:20:2005 ON THE
FILE} OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISIQNER FQR
2 MFA N£).5656/ 2906
WORKMENB COMPENSATION I-EUBLI SUB~DIViSiON~I HUBLI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF' RS.48,808/- WITH INTEREST
AT 12% RA. FROM 17.2.2005 TILL XDEPQSIT AND DIRECTING
THE APPELLANT HEREEN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME,
THES MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
HEARING - THIS BAY, THE COURT 1t>E;..1vI:r~_2i::1::a-.;_.
FOLLOWING: " .. '
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the
against the Judgment dated /2055 %
Court of Work;men’sV (itinimisegioner,
Hubli. By the impugnea
has aWardedA’:A”‘aj”~~of =’§Rs.48,808/~ for the
injuries Suf£’¢reri V’ 3 moior accident that
occurred on: 1?/0 1 /2:505; «
new the learned counsel for the
the impugned judgment; and the
Vrecorci” o.f’*”;t11e Commissioner for Workmexfs
K The claim was resisted by the
apigéiiafit-Insurance Company on the grozztnd that there
W ho employer—-emp1oyee relationship between the
‘4 kzlaimant and the insured.
my
J 1V.li’I”‘l iV\}ux3KJyi\)f £4-\i\iiJ
3. The sole contention urged by the learned
counsel fer the appeliant iS that there was no empioyep
employee relationship between the claimant
respondent No.2 and hence the Commissioner ~
in law in making the insurance company T’
award. The eiaimant had on éeatee T
Workzing as a hamali on the vehicle qtiesfioii V
date of the accident. This
disputed by the empioyei:;”‘:««It _state the
employer did not even made
by it
4’ “Commissioner that the
claimant Wasworitirgg as employee under respondent
J ‘N{_).2 the date’ef«the accident is based on the oral
iemgiice noneemal of the said fact by the
i empie§}er.V. I’ no error in the said finding to warrant
” ‘ »- ‘ 4. _ ieterfereiiee in appeal.
32%/V
4 MFA 346.5656] Qms
5. The amount lying in deposit with this Court
shall be transferred to the Worlmerfs
Commissioner for disburse} to me _ : _
accordance with iaw. J >
Appeal dismissed.
Kmv