Dismissed

Branch Manager v. Mahesh

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2019MFA/20042/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed appeals filed by Oriental Insurance Company against labor commissioner awards for workmen's compensation. Court applied Supreme Court precedent to determine eligible claimants based on insurance coverage, refusing refund only for one respondent.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company deposits refunded for Mahesh only; amounts for other claimants transmitted to jurisdictional court.

Branch Manager Vs Mahesh — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶5

M.F.A. NO.20041/2010 (WC) C/W

¶6

M.F.A.NOS.20042, 20043 AND 20044 OF 2010

¶7

IN MFA NO.20041/2010

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BELLARY, NOW REP.BY IT’S REGIONAL MANAGER, SUMANGAL COMPLEX, OPP.CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

RASHEED S/O IMAMUDDIN, AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O NEAR LORRY TERMINAL, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.

¶14

SAYYAD KHAJABA S/O SAYYAD AMEENUDDIN, AGE: MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.140, WARD NO.4, BANDIMOTE, BELLARY, (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-34/4525)

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA J.S., ADV. FOR R1, APPEAL AGAINST R2 ABATED)

¶17

¶18

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(a) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.05.2009 PASSED IN W.C.NF.NO.222/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, BELLARY, SUB-DIVISION-II, DISTRICT BELLARY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,10,502/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶19

IN MFA NO.20042/2010

¶20

BETWEEN

¶21

BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BELLARY, NOW REP.BY IT’S REGIONAL MANAGER, SUMANGAL COMPLEX, OPP.CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶22

APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)

¶24

AND

¶25

MAHESH S/O KOLLARAPPA, AGE: 24 YEARS, R/O TUMATI TANDA, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.

¶26

SAYYAD KHAJABA S/O SAYYAD AMEENUDDIN, AGE: MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.140, WARD NO.4, BANDIMOTE, BELLARY, (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-34/4525)

¶27

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA J.S., ADV. FOR R1, APPEAL AGAINST R2 ABATED)

¶28

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(a) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.05.2009 PASSED IN W.C.NF.NO.224/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, BELLARY, SUB-DIVISION-II, DISTRICT

¶29

¶30

BELLARY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,00,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶31

IN MFA NO.20043/2010

¶32

BETWEEN

¶33

BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BELLARY, NOW REP.BY IT’S REGIONAL MANAGER, SUMANGAL COMPLEX, OPP.CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶34

APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)

¶36

AND

¶37

PARAMESH S/O BHIMANNA, AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O TUMATI TANDA,

¶38

TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.

¶39

SAYYAD KHAJABA S/O SAYYAD AMEENUDDIN, AGE: MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.140, WARD NO.4, BANDIMOTE, BELLARY, (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-34/4525)

¶40

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA J.S., ADV. FOR R1, APPEAL AGAINST R2 ABATED)

¶41

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(a) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.05.2009 PASSED IN W.C.NF.NO.223/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, BELLARY, SUB-DIVISION-II, DISTRICT BELLARY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,19,540/- WITH

¶42

¶43

INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶44

IN MFA NO.20044/2010

¶45

BETWEEN

¶46

BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BELLARY, NOW REP.BY IT’S REGIONAL MANAGER, SUMANGAL COMPLEX, OPP.CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶47

APPELLANT

¶48

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)

¶49

AND

¶50

NAGARAJU S/O BENDRAPPA,

¶51

AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O TUMATI TANDA, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.

¶52

SAYYAD KHAJABA S/O SAYYAD AMEENUDDIN, AGE: MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.140, WARD NO.4, BANDIMOTE, BELLARY, (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-34/4525)

¶53

RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA J.S., ADV. FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

¶55

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(a) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.05.2009 PASSED IN W.C.NF.NO.225/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, BELLARY, SUB-DIVISION-II, DISTRICT BELLARY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,20,263/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶56

¶57

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

On 14.02.2019 matters called twice, none appears

¶60

for the respondents. Today also, though the matters are called twice none appeared for the respondents. Since the

¶61

matters are of the year 2010, the same are taken up for final disposal.

¶62

These appeals are preferred by the Insurance

¶63

Company questioning the validity of the judgment and award dated 28.05.2009 passed in WCA.NF.Nos.222 to 225 of 2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ballari (for short ‘the Commissioner’).

¶64

Facts of the case are, on 28.02.2006, the claimants were traveling in a truck bearing Reg.No.KA34/4525 from VGM Mines to Vinayak Nagar Yard to the Ballari Rural District, which was turtled resulting in severe

¶65

¶66

injuries to the persons who are traveling in the truck including the claimants. In this regard, criminal case was registered in Ballari Rural Police Station in FIR No.60/2006. The claimants said to have taken treatment in VIMS Hospital, Ballari. Due to severe injuries caused on the claimants, claimants filed claim petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner proceeded to pass the award in favour of the claimants. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company.

¶67

The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that, there is no relationship of employer and employee and it was not established. Further, it was argued that the vehicle was insured for driver plus two persons (hamalies) whereas the claimants were four in number including the driver. Therefore, even the award is required to be upheld, it can be upheld only

¶68

¶69

against three persons including the driver and fourth

¶70

person Sri.Mahesh in MFA No.20042/2010 is not extended.

¶71

None appears for the respondents.

¶72

Perusal of the records, it is evident that the

¶73

claimants have not produced any documentary evidence relating to the relationship of employer and employee to contend that other than Rashid rest of them are hamalies. The other contention is also required to be examined to the extent that the truck is insured only for three persons including the driver. Therefore, the highest awards are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of extending compensation to the injured persons. In the present appeals, Sri.Rashid the driver is undisputedly entitled and in respect of Paramesh, Mahesh and Nagaraj are concerned, the award of compensation to Paramesh and Nagaraj are more than the award of compensation to Mahesh. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

¶74

Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Anjana Shyam and Others

¶75

¶76

reported (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 445 in

¶77

paragraph 23 held as under:

¶78

“23. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the Insurance Company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the Insurance Company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the Insurance Company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the Insurance Company proportionately to all the claimants., here all the 90, and leave all the

¶79

¶80

claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.”

¶81

Therefore, in view of the decision cited supra, Paramesh and Nagaraj are entitled for compensation and not Mahesh. Accordingly, appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed, except MFA No.20042/2010 (Mahesh’s case).

¶82

The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the Insurance Company insofar as Mahesh case is concerned, i.e. MFA No.20042/2010 and in other matters, the amount

¶83

shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court.

¶84

SD JUDGE

¶85

MBS/-

Branch Manager v. Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. Mahesh

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

Dundawwa W/O. Shivappa Mantoor Vs Sangappa Shanabasappa Andani @ Ullagaddi

Rahul Durgappa Patil Occ Student R/O.Chandur Post Vs Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Sanjeev S/O.Parashram Bhajantri Occ Student Vs Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Branch Manager Vs Rasheed

Maruti S/O Ramachandra Pujari Vs Smt. N. Rajati W/O Omadhu

Shri. Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Jakkappanavar Vs Shri. Nagappa S/O Yallappa Hanchinal