Dismissed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Reg. Manager v. Smt. Geeta Wd/O Madhukar Lande and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2012FA/368/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant National Insurance Co. challenged a compensation award of Rs.5,43,471.84 awarded to the dependents of Madhukar Lande. The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the commissioner's finding of facts regarding the employment relationship was supported by the record.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed summarily as no substantial question of law was involved.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Reg… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

270712fa368.12 .odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.368/2012 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO..VS.. SMT. GEETA MADHUKAR LANDE & ORS

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s orders

¶7

Mr. S.N. Dhanagare, adv for appellant

¶8

CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J . DATED : 27.7.2012.

¶9

The appellant before this court, is the original non applicant no.1 in Application (WCA)(F)No.C17/2010 before the Commissioner under Workmens' Compensation Act & Judge First Labour Court, Nagpur. The award was passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens' Compensation Act directing the appellant herein and respondent no.6 - the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation of Rs.5,43,471.84 on account of death of one Madhukar occurred during the course of his employment i.e. while driving the truck owned by the respondent no.6 herein, insured with the appellant.

¶10

This being an appeal under section 30(1)(a) of the Workmens' Compensation Act, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to demonstrate that substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.

¶11

Mr. Dhanagare, learned counsel appearing for

¶12

270712fa368.12 .odt

¶13

¶14

the appellant contended that there is no proof of relationship of employer – employee and in that view of the matter the learned Commissioner has gone wrong in saddling the liability upon the appellant and respondent no.6 herein. He placed reliance 1999 I LLJ 263 [Easow Easow..vs.. Rajan Kallippara Thekkeveetil & another] wherein it was held that in absence of any evidence to establish employer-employee relationship the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to fix the liability on the owner to pay compensation. In fact there cannot be any quarrel with this proposition.

¶15

In the present case both the non applicants were proceeded exparte. Evidence led on affidavit went unchallenged. The police papers revealed that deceased was on wheels of vehicle no. MH-34-AB-0409 was owned by present respondent no.6, insured with appellant. This circumstance is consistent with the case put-forth by the applicants. Learned Commissioner taking stock of the material placed on record observed that:

¶16

“Spot panchnama is at Ex.24. Inquest panchnama is at Ex.25 wherein name of deceased is mentioned as Madhukar Pandurang Lande and postmortem report is at ex.26 wherein name of deceased is mentioned as Madhukar Pandurang Lande, driver, who expired on spot and was taken for postmortem. Ex.31 is notice to the Non-

¶17

270712fa368.12 .odt

¶18

¶19

applicants date d6.3.2010 i.e. at the earliest opportunity. The evidence on affidavit is filed by applicants at Ex.20. Non-applicant No.1 did not step into the witness box. Non-applicant no.2 remained absent. The facts on record show that deceased Madhukar Lande was driver on tipper in question who met with accident and expired on spot while serving with non-applicant no.2. It is not specifically denied that Tipper was not being used for carrying or transporting building materials. It is thus clear that accident took place during the course of and out of employment. Notice Ex.31 is not denied. There is no reply to the said notice on record. The notice was served vide acknowledgments Ex.32 and 33 respectively. The insurance policy is filed on record i.e. certified copy by Non-applicant No.1 which is in respect of tipper in question. The chassis and engine number does tally with the tipper in question. The validity period was from 31.10.2009 to 30.9.2010. Relationship of the deceased with the applicants is clear from the copy of ration card filed at Ex.27. Applicant no.1 is widow and applicant no.2 and 3 are minor daughter and son and applicant no.4 and 5 are parents. No denial from the side of non-applicant no.2 that he was not in service of non applicant

¶20

270712fa368.12 .odt

¶21

¶22

no.2. The name of non-applicant no.2 reflects in insurance policy i.e. Dhondu Bapnji Dhandre which shows that tipper was belonging to nonapplicant No.2 and two workers were covered under the policy including driver. Hence I answer issue No.1 accordingly holding that accident took place during the course of and out of employment on 27.2.2010.”

¶23

The finding given by learned Commissioner, appears to be consistent with the record and unassailable. No question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed summarily.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

SMP.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Reg. Manager v. Smt. Geeta Wd/O Madhukar Lande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Reg. Manager v. Smt. Geeta Wd/O Madhukar Lande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankarrao Amrutrao Kale Vs Raghunath Jagoji Shirpurkar

Laxmanrao S/O Mahadji Ingole Vs Sau. Reeta W/O Rajendra Biyani and Anr.

Pralhad S/O Sadashiv Dhakne and Others Vs Arun S/O Ramchandra Atkar and Others

Shriram Haroji Dhole Vs Rajaram Ganji Khirade and 4 Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Thr. Its Divsnl Manager Vs Rama @ Ramrao Domaji Kachurde and Anr.

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Thr. Its Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Vs Rukhmabai Kesharimal Bothara (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Prakashchand Kesharimal Bothara and 2 Others