« .e:B9i' '§I¥£:i;i§'.}§:K?JPP!§LUR, ADV.
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAKA, c1RcU:fr~B§§NcH
AT DHARWAD . » _ % % "
QATED THIS THE 2 1 ST DAY OF NOVE¥§IjB.Ei?..;::iO08 &
PRESEE§:' ? . p%
HON' BLE MR.Fq"£.J$TiéC3E"N.KI}?%§23;i%€':'_V_:'V
HON" BLE MR. a1:i$*,T1(§EVGowDA
aw:-&~'5--°' swan
nwrwmgg u % '
THE NEW Imiryus;»A$sUR;.NcE"c:0.MPANYMMITED,
KARWARDO,
THRGVUGH ITS REGIODIAL 4033133, .
NO.2-E3, UNITY BUEL¥}§NG Ar;NF.xE.-
1:)R.i<AL;;~z@A RAG 12331),"
BANGALGRE - 56eV_o2»? .'* _ ..
REPBY ITS QEIPUTY'. MA1~§A<';ER,
SRLC...R,SUBRA_MAI*»IYA V '
V FOR SEETHARAMA RAG, ADV.)
v--..S§MT."EHARATHI W10. LATE RAKESH NEACHALE
.. AGE: 32 YEARS,
" .. A' MASTER Ni'I'iSH S/O.LA'I'E RAKESH MACHALE
AGED 14 YEARS,
3. i{UM.NIKITHA D/C). LATE RAKESH MACHALE
AGED 13 YEARS,
SINCE Ra AND 12.3 ARE Mruorzs ARE}
REPRESENTEE) BY THEIR MOTHER AND
}a/%
... APPELLANF.
NATUAL GUARDIAN.
LE. 15'? RESPONDENT HEREIN.
ALL ARE R/A VEERAPURA QNI,
HUBLI DISTRICT.
4. SRI.A.R.”BANDEKAR
AGED 34 YEARS,
R/A. coum ROAD,
OLD DANBELI, HALEYAL TALUK,
U’i”I’AR KANNADA DISTRICT. V » .
(OWNER OF LORRY NQKA-30/2§%78),.,_ j;
“;…”E<gé'.'"§Cfs~;i§31;r;N*§sj .
(BY SRi.N.GAN'GADHAR,ABV..) ' % V'
MFA FILED U/S.8_0(1) 0:? VwC:A'A.c*1*..,aGA1NS?.f1fHf;:KJUDGMENT as
ORDER DATED 13/6/2o*:r~~..1?AssEn IN. }i-.’CA:NF:NO:55/0? ON THE FILE
or THE 15.3052 0FI~”iC.i-LR :35 commxsszoxm FOR WORKMEN
CZOMPENSATEGN, HUBL1 sUB_T_Div,L..HU}3LI, Awzmviue A COMPENSATION
OF RS.3,11,9’70/~ wfiTHINfr_m;E$1’@ 12 PLA, .,
;_THES AI75i5 E.¥{3;.. FOR oanms, THIS DAY, NKUMAR, 5.,
DELIVERED THE VF'(3:I.__L<:_)\'kf.¥..if4'{'i.:
; JfiDGMENT
is by the Insurance Company against
._ é1£!§'.*;.:z}{iVV.T'V_'p2;issed by the Commissioner for Workmezfs
Cb.mpéfi$-':é3:ion, Hubli awarding campemsation K) the legal
' *1:z§irs '"of tha daceased workinan who died in a motor
ifeliicle accident.
2. The claimants are wife and ehilciren of one”-Rakesh
Machaie. He was travelling in a lorry xKA
30/2 178. The case of the claimants was
working as 3 hamal. He was ¥;r:;ii§?elli1ig AV
course of employment on
proceeding in the lorry eideV_ul5ae:1cieli’Veut
about 10.30 p.In. whem_ aooviit 4v4k.n*1s. away
from Joida towards lost control over
the vehicle lanestiga fe11::oii.’t12eV.§side of the road. The
said 4 others sustem ed severe
Izifiehal died. Therefore his L.Rs have
“‘pet.i.1:ion seeking compensation under the
l ef. the Worklnenfs Compensation Act. The
.’ ex£%f1er.lof’s?1;b;e lorry entered appearance and filed ssatemeet
of objlleetions admitting the fact that the deceased Rakesh
was; his employee working as a cleaner. However
the Insurance company contested the claim contending
thai, since the deceased was not an employee under the
owner of the lorry the Insurance company is not liable to
pay any cempensation. In fact they V. an
investigator to investigate and find 0’1i’£._:
deceased was travelling as a zpassenger or ey ‘eIee£r1er§_
The said investigator s§T1b 1nitted.:’h.iS ” V’
examined in the case The
Commissioner en evidenee on record
and taking note of owner of the lorry
held the the deceased was
Working died in the course of
are entitled to
com§ensationw._.ig$;§’.i;f1e:”goods vehicle was iI1S”1.’£I’f:d and
lieghility fdstened on the Insurance Company. It
evidence of the investigator and the report on
A ._ ‘teed it is purely hearsay. Aggrieved by the said
dward or the Commissioner the present appeal is filed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the
‘T impugned award contended that Ex. P E and P 2 produced
by the claimants themselves show that the deceased was
5
travelling as a passenger. In addition to that the:’ex:ider1ee
of RV! 1 investigator also shows that he as
passenger and not as a hams} and thus
committed illegality in igneriz1g:=.A_¥11€:-.SeA.»}3i4epx>§?’if;i1e4’pe.ssiz§gthe’ 4f
award V V .
4. We do not find any in ‘ti’_1_e”e»said7_subm_ission.
Reliance is placed A_Ex_«”._fi}ed§vby’Aene Narayan
with the jurisdietionefi 6 passengers
were f¥’vs.gee.sseegers died. In the entire FIR
nowhereeit is deceased Rakesh Masha} was a
ysfissexager in the said vehieie. As far as evidence
VA :’ef_ -.4VAImr_estigator is concerned he has stated on oath
r :f.is1at xhe”.Wae;;.e;epointeci as an Investigator, he went to Joida
p§e1i_eeV:«ste;fien and inquired with the police and by looking
.. AA 131:9 iiixe FER, submitted a report. He has me: made any
ieeependent investigation to fxnd eut whether the
” deceased was an employee under the ewner ef the vehicle
or he was enly a passenger. The entire report was based
based (>31 legal evidence. As such no
of law arise for consicieratien in this appeai;-._Hejrju:é thcfe is.
119 merit. Accorciingly the appeal iS §iSI1{I.i_.SS6d:.i «. _V =
5. The amount in dep0é;iLtVfii11 this’ directed to
be transmitted to far Vcviisbxursement to
the c1ai1nan§:sg H