Janathagraha.
Near Maclhu Garrage,
Christian Colony,
Narikombu Village and ?ost.
Buntwala 'Fa.luk, D.K.
3. Sri.H.Ravindra Kini,
Major.
Son of I~i.Srinivas Kini,
Manjunath Nilya, V '
Badakatte, " _ \ n
Buntwala, D.K. g ..:-,gR{CSPOl\i'DEl\l'I'S":
(By Sri.K.Venkategowc1a, for
R3 served, un.represented]C'-.,_ C "
MFA filed U/s.30[l) (a) ofitheC'VWorknie.r1".s Compensation
Act. against the order dated-7:1"29.f?,2003a Clplassed in case
No.WCA:F:26/2001; 'onltheg f§_le»' of "1h_'e..__Cfommissioner for
Workmens eompe-nsaflfic»_n;v :'SLilo--D,_ivi_sion,--l, Chickmagalur,
partly allowing the claini petiiiiojn 'for.ieo'ijnpensation.
This MFA~._hav1ng and reserved and coming
on for pronouneenientggof Juldgemeiit this day. B.MANOI~{A§R
J..'vdelive1fe;§:l "the following:
V,JUDGMENT
AU:11'fl'_€(gfA1 Ihsurantte Company being aggrieved by the
(iat.ed,.__'29.#742OO3 passed in WCA:F:26/2001 by the
4"C'o.i13§gnissionei*' for Wo1"krnen's Compensation filed this appeal.
/V
2. The few facts of the case are as follows:
The claimants are the legal representatives of"-.__the
deceased Ganesh Kumar who was working as 211 d1*iy_erVV'i'n:'ah-«
Ambassador C211' bearing I'egis1'1'ai'io1'1 No.KA?"l__9/VM-.837ii
belonging to the third respondent d1e6»"Mi1"i'9__ incutozfl"2§<;;<:1d'e'1'1t:K
that occurred on 22-3-2001 near K2£1e._1’1;§’i.g1dde
Vittala road. The eiainlants limrheé. e()z’1t’e_r_1Cied.-= ifmlt the
deceased Ganesh Kumar uIafs’~~aged’hab’oLit. years ‘£1t.”vtI1e time
of the accident and he was get.i,i~r1g ~» 13.111.
and Rs.50/- as 1:)c”;_’Lt1e’i§J-.’Hefiisijo:*ily”T:he–V”brieeid eamer of the
family. Dueihto fliew .e3eathit;I”f:C.ei’r}eshuKurn.211’. they were put. to
great hardsh1’p. and sogglifii.fcjzqéiompensation.
3. Pursuant fo_t11.e r1ot1ee’.1§§.£;L1e.d by the CommissioI”1er for
WC-17}im@11»’&§’.:.Compens’a–€:io_h_,’,£.he third resporaderlt who is the
o\vf1r;1″ of”the .Q;”1’et1di’1?1g vehieie filed objections co1’1ter1ding that
7V2/_t11e-1’e ism’ 1~e1a{ifio1j.1sh113 of employer and employee between
_”h_im’.a1″1d the deceased. He also contended that he has sold
/fly
the said car to the deceased on 1540-2000 itself and by
taking Roan from the Jain Finemciers. the deCeased_.._had
purchased the said vehicle. He Corltends-; r112-1t he $x}’ie1s3:””:«1€V3t_A’
‘avi1’15 am’ $21121 to the deceased and sou fht for diSr1j1-is:-§2:iI’t 0f” 0
– £3 – ‘lfl _ _
the claim petition.
4. The second respondent InsL1re1nir;e :S0.:511p’a1.:iyTiled’-ee._t,l”r»i§e’
objections denying the avern’1ent.s’00m..ade in. the _f””the deceased before the
C0mn’1isSi0ne1*v1″0:” VV'()VI’.k3″:f1{3I01″”S’ECOHIPCIISEEUOIE and sought for
dismissal Qf the ciézigffz p.etiti’on.”
5. the pieadings of the parties. the
‘V.__xCVon1missiQne;é-~ _v'{“r;)A1* Workmen’s C0:11pe1*1.s=e1ti01’1 framed
“”n:£34C€S’;=:2n1ry issues. The eiaimants in order to prove their case.
*._'”exéimi:.1Ved. ..=t:he second elaimant P.W.1 and marked
/fl/,
‘.Ja
doctzments as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. The respondents have not
i..7eeyer.
they have marked the Hire ¥’urc:1’1ase Ag{I’eemer1t.*’L1s
and the Insurance Policy has been markedras V’
6. The Commissioner for
considering the evider1eejo_i’ P,.W; t.h«’e”v-doeittments
produced, heid that the deceéeieetd under the
third respondent paying saiary
of Rs.6._OOO/» Though the third
respondent, the vehieie to the
deceased, ,=iri the name of the third
I’€Sp0l”ld€r1:t_.._ L vehieie is Covered by the
‘s’ec~’ond respondent. the Commissioner
held ~tha1_t theV”;jIainig1’r.it’s are emitted for compensation due to
‘v._A”t.’hr-3 deatii-1__o1’v_t:i:_ei1?.: son. Since the deceased is aged e:1bout’. 28
as on thie date of the accident and was getting” 2,1 sataiy
.R$;,16;–9.OO/- p.m.. the ‘1’1’ibunai eonfiniiig the same to
/2″?
6
Rs.4.000/» p.m., awarded compensation of Rs.4,23.580/- by
applying the relevant. factor 21 1.97.
7. The appellant, being aggrievecl by the award passe.d’*h_Vy
the Commissioner for Workrneifs CompensatioI1.__§”f’i’ie~d_’~-.l;lii5s__’_
appeal.
8. Sri.B.C.Seet:hararna Rao, learned counxsel for
the appellant contended that t.hpe__u”dec:’e_ased’ ‘was _riot’ the
workman under the third “respor3c1en:t..”””–VfF.;i1’tl_1e1′, the third
respondent. sold tliedevceasecl on 15-10-2000
itself. hence. “t«l1e’-dectea’s’ed_ CL”:-¥;_1p1l’*1enot be a workman under the
third respondent. he’-is”not: entitled for any <::on1pe11sat:i()i1.
He' also V'eont:'e'An(i's thettvflltlie compensation awarded by the
Comr;-1iss_eior1er"–ifoi' VWo',rkn1e11's Compensation is too excessive.
'v.__AF't1rther, the _appVeVlla1nt"s counsel has contended tliat during
:01' the matter, the appellants have filed an
0"._a:34"lie;1t.'io3'1A'A under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC to summon the
0 :1'. V.
v»~.J
said Financier. who has fmaneecl the vehicle and for
production of Hire Purchase Agreement. However. t.he_:’sai~d_
application was rejected on l4~5~2003 and the Cori*1:n1is’sio”11tr2ji1—— ~
has not given reasonable opportt.1r1ity»”~to.<the appe,iiant._'_fir)"._ V
produ(:e necessary documents and t.o !:'S':.'Vin7;githe tirtie. 'iv22.etis"on-.
record. If the Commissioner one more'
to the appellantInsurance.xx adxxrouldd have
produced necessary documents'. it further
contended that to be t.he
workmari underti' since he became the
owner of the for setting aside the
award and alxlowing
9:?"–v.The:,third respondent; owner of the vehicle in question
rerr1ai__ned_ 'u.r1:re'preserited before this court. The Respondents
and haired'gtiontiended that the Commissioner after
"~r.:o'n_s'i'dering'the entire materials available on record and after
"'pe'rtisi1":g_t__r–ie hire purchase agreement. produced by the owner
fl
of the vehicle awarded compensat.io1'1. The Commissioner has
given a finding to the effect that the RC stands in the «of
the owner of the vehicle in question and l1e11ee. cie'c::efaslc%t§e. .
cannot. become the owner of the ve11iole….. I_;_earr;ied" t:a';t.11'ise:l..t'o1é_ it
the responderats 1 and 2 ftlrtkleij thaxt
Commissioner after consideringt.he.._i'a1trt"tliat *
was getting a salary of Rs-.–4»,:f30G–,{w p".'m.._ awarded
compensation, which is in atEt%orCiarf1»e}3 \'vith.VVll'a_\.v and sought
for dismissal of the apptieil.
10. We have tilhrotlgh the argtlments
addressed the ap;5e:IVlai1’ts1″as’ well as the respondents,
perused the judgment award and also oral and
dtoetime1i’t–ary»–.’eVide1’1ce ofuthe parties.
It is T1011~ill:’..–LliSpL1t€ that the deceased Ganesh Kumar
ofthe elalmahts has been died on 22«3w200i while he
“wasl’dri\z_i1j,g an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.
X59,
L;
I{A»19/i\/£8372 near K-alladka Vitteua Road. It is the case of
the Claimants that the deceased was working 21 r.i”r*i,Ver
under one H.RaVindra Kim. who is the owner of tiiemsaid.’_C§;1r.”
However. he contended that he has sold on7
15–10–2000 itself and there is no
empioyee. The respondents ha\(e_’11ot. Ae2;ernir1egiv–‘7a:1Vy:(>i’°’:t.h’e ‘
witnesses to prove their case.
_12. During the pendeneyiitToih/__f§5i<3 before the
Commissioner, the appellant" fiie§1._an3 zapxpiicfeitiori under
Order 16 the Financier and
firoduction agI'eerr1ent.. Since the
Xerox COp_yf.Qf Agreement is aiready on the
fiieV.o'i7. Workmen's Compensation. t.he
CoinVt'nissei0Vr1e.r~ijejecte:.i the said application.
7?'_13.. As e"oui€;l be seen from the records. the Regist.ration
; Cve'rtvifie'ate4_stiil stands in the name of the owner of the Vehicle
&/
Ii)
and the Xerox. e.op_\; of the Hire Purchase .Ag1'eeme1'1t: is a b__ia111~:
Form. Looking at the Hire Purchase Agreement, it cr2i,.ii'i2.ot._I';–e
made out as to whether the owner of the vehicle solid tIjieCé.2zei;ti'*'-I '
Ambassador Car to the deceased Kti'1:I1'ar" (anti,
R.K.Jain Financier had financed for p1ir't;11ase of said
14. The only question to be deeicied inthie va1p§)’e:1:Iv.iV,sj as to
whether the Insurer is liable to com_pe-risate the eiairrieiints due
to the death of their son’?
15. beeniiled by the Insurer for
production to show that there is
no 1*e1ationShAipI””‘ofiy and empioyee between the
the«”ovener”‘ovf the vehicle. the same has been
reject-‘ed.._r-If ari*t)pj:$orti;:nit.y is given to the Insurance Company
to prodtiee the Said document by summoning the Financier.
W111 come out. Hence. we are of the opinion that in
V”«_”order=to*gi’;re one more opportunity to the Inszuaiace Company
‘J
/
%/
to produce necessary documents and to find out the irue
facts. We set aside the order dated 297-2003 and
matter back to the Commissioner for _.A*v’i7ori{:§€’eiif:”s—1i~
Compensation, Chikkamagaliir to reconsider’niatfer_=by_ Vi
providing necessary epporulnity to the °pai*EieS 21?:-ddpase
orders in accordance with haw. \vit.hi’r121 ]I)é1’i1{)d,QfT:SiV’}-1 “i*im1it,hs ”
from the date of receipt of Va.eopy«..of “Aeedrdingly.
the appeal is allowed.
The amoufii i:’1′}:»iS.*COLlF{ is directed to
be refunded: ‘temtV1ie.. :I5i1surfér3(_:’e » 0mpe;f1’y.
S&i€-
dddddd Ridge
Seedff;
Fudge