-1- IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAmgALQA£f; DATED THIS THE 25" DAY or NOVEMBER 2953 "_ *' PRESENT,w~- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K ;;MANJUfiAiH ~"*' A AEAA THE HON'BLE MA.JUsTIcA's}n,sATYANARAIANA MISCELLANEOUS F125? AApEAL"Ao.é059/2005 (wc) BETWEEN: 3' THE NEW INDIA AssUAAN:E CO LTD REP.€BY;DEVISIONAL»MRNAGER; DIvIsIQNAL;9FF;CE;" 9 SHYAMANBR B$ILGING CHAMRAJA9a$,*A ,'~ DAvANAGEAE;x» <,'z_. NOW REP, BY ITS Q JRX DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE # 8, #47, ,, GG?AL c0MPLEx;.H_. ..... "=«BAzAAR=sTAET V'. EESHWANTHPUR, '_'aANGALaRE 55Q»o22. ~.'.: "fs_';' . APPELLANT '33w (3y s:i--GaAAAA$ANA AAO, ADV) A*1= REVANNA '"»H_s/o NINGAPPA " AGED ABOUT 43 YRS, R/AT MUTTON MARKET ROAD, HIRIYUR TQ., CHI TRADURGA DI S T, 2 LAKSHMAKKA W/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YRS, _ED R/AT MUTTON MARKET RoAD,J HIRIYUR TQ., 1 CHITRADURGA DIsI, 3 N AJEEMUNISSA a_*, w/0 ERIE K N SHREIDLLA a_ I OWNER OF LORRY EERIRs~~.4= , REGISTRATION NG,KAmO&,Aw1?5€,"a_ P J HALLI, No.80/12; 2,5; Ex" 5" MAIN, JABBAR EEAK,v_ BANGALORE 560 003."w; _ ,mx -«,' .='x.* 2 §~= "VI;;;-REspoNDERIs (By Sri MEDUERRRGDDDR R RREIE FOR R1 & 2) THIS .MER; I3,'FiLED--fU/S 30 (1) OF THE RoRKMER¥s cDMDERsRTioRf ACT .AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND RRARD_'.DT-_'D7;I}2oo5 PASSED IN CASE No.wcRiEc/cR--21[2oo3: ow THE FILE DE THE LABOUR OFFICfiR1% "AND ""toMMIssIDNER FOR WURKMEN '<cDMRENsRI1oR,j'CEIIRADDRGA, AWARDINGr COMPENSATION oE_*35.3,3R,5?d}« WITH INTEREST AT 12% AND DIREcIING~_EHE APPELLANT HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE L°V._fRIs APPEAL CDMIRG ow FOR ADISSIDN THIS "u, JDRE,.MRNuDNAEH'J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
Challenging the order and
Commissioner for Workinen’_s CQIta’–.ensatiwon§
Chitradurga, dated 7.1.2905 inhicase ;~:c;9…¢R.’21’)fé’t3io3″‘,
the Insurance Company appeal on
two grounds that, relationship of
employer and employ4e§~h.%,é§L.¢ieen__.’p:tl1.e:e.deceased Mylari
and the widow of late
K.N.Shafi-ujixllap determination of
compen.=sat_i”o.ni.’ the income of the
deceas_ed–. ‘ per month is on higher
Side. ‘ 4 i V. V
not in dispute that Mylari, the son
1 and 2 died in a road traffic
acciden~t_’fwAhile discharging his duties as a
V’~».<:lean'e.r__i3on 11.11.2002 at 1.09 pm., on the way to
"'-x_"r§u_blii_A.'.'uru near Iddalanagenahalli gate on account
the rash and negligent driving of the lorry.
According to the respondents 1 and 2, their son
was discharging his dutiesas a cleaner and died
5/
while on duty. According to them, the aééeésédk
was earning a sum of Rs.4,GOO/~ pert month Rae?
salary" in addition to a 'batta?_ of: Re:3flJ;Vdper»
day. The deceased was aged about 18 yeags, 7rfiéT.
owner of the vehicle Ajoemunisa did not contest
the case. The appellant insdrance coeoanf filed
its objections contehdfing that since the owner of
the vehicle K.1f{.Shafiauli"la ""cn'A'*:é:2§"1o.2oo2 and
the accident;_"'hjaaa'V ole-:c1irj:.'ed':"' :§fi¢."'l1.1.~;'11.2oo2 i.e..
subsequent to the death of the holicy holder and
the;efqré}"t§e_i§g§:§n§e cohfiahy is not liable to
pay comheneationim It eaa also contended that the
deceased Qaa not gettihg a salary of R5.4,000/-
s,pervmenth and a 'hatta' of Rs.50/– per day. The
d:Commisaloner; by rejecting the- contention of the
ahpeilanthhfherein has held that there was
V.relationahip of employer and employee between the
u""lhdeceaaed"and Ajeemunisa even though the owner of
4ltheh"?ehicle K.N.Shafiulla died prior to the
hfl"aacldent. It was also held that the deceased was
uh"~oetting a salary of Rs.3,000/– and based on the
V
same by taking the factor in terms tcfg the
Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation_§ct{ii9§3fn
awarded compensation of Rs.3,39,5?0[F,VhQ«$hiew
judgment and award is called in question in thie
appeal.
3. The main’ contention rof the” learned
Counsel for the appellant hefoféffifi is since on
the date of..accidenti the “owngf«¢§f the vehicle
Shafiulla “fiasi hotj alive fthere cannot be a
relationehie of emplofier_and employee between the
deceased and–the owner of the vehicle, Shafiulla
and the liability fixed on the insurance company
~”.Mha§ltQW§G.set aside. He also contends that no
i} positive evidence has been let in to show that
the deceeeed Qas getting a sum of Rs.3,00G/* per
a month as éalazy.
l4. We are unable to accede to the
l’~contentions for the following reasons.
Admittedly the policy is issued wto qthe .
vehicle covering the risk of the accident.’ It iea
no doubt true that the vehicle of the oener.diedx
on 22.10.2002 and the acaiaéntt oéefirrednfofi”
11.11.2902 within twenty –daya from ‘the: date fiof
death of the owner fiof the Efiehiolel h*After the
death of Shafiulla hie wife oelhd the legal heir
has been arrayefi he ¢”paftY;@f,£hi%dhot the case
of Ajeemunleé«fi%hfitfiKtheJ a§¢é§§§a’ was not an
employee on her and heh htebana. When deceased
had beenmvienploged Ldfirlor;lWto the death of
Shafiulla; even attefathtvdeath of Shafiulla his
relationship with Ajeemuniea would continue as an
‘”emplofer and emoloyee. As etated earlier, when
the Gehicle is insured and it does not cover the
personal riak of Shafiulla, we are of the opinion
5_ that the firet contention urged by the appellant
“*.fiaSxto_beNnegatived.
l5. Insofar as the second contention is
ddooncerned, though it was contended by the
gj