Dismissed

The Branch Manager. v. Shri. Munavar Pasha S/O Abdul Rahim Pasha

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2019MFA/21890/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed six maintenance agency appeals filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against workmen compensation awards. The Court held that the appellant failed to make a prima facie case to challenge the Commissioner's order due to lack of inquiry into the X-ray reports and the treating physician's certificate during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Appeals stood dismissed; amount deposited shall be transmitted to the concerned jurisdictional Court for disbursement.

The Branch Manager. Vs Shri. Munavar Pasha… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶6

MFA No.21890 of 2011 (WC) C/w. MFA No.21894 of 2011, MFA No.21893 of 2011, MFA No.21892 of 2011, MFA No.21891 of 2011 & MFA No.21895 of 2011

¶7

IN MFA NO.21890 OF 2011:

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY, NOW REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MISS RENUKA Y.RANEBENNUR, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RO CELL DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBLI.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

SHRI MUNAVAR PASHA S/O ABDUL RAHIM PASHA, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: EX-DRIVER,

¶14

R/O.: BAMBOO BAZAR, TQ & DIST:BELLARY.

¶15

SHRI GOUS PASHA S/O KAISHAR AGE NOT MENTIONED,

¶16

R/O.: VINOB NAGAR, II CROSS, 1^ST MAIN,

¶17

DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN KANAPA CR NO.339/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,41,883/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶22

IN MFA NO.21894 OF 2011:

BETWEEN

... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND

¶28

SHRI SWAMY S/O TIMMANNA, AGE 23 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI, R/O PARVATI NAGAR, TQ & DIST:BELLARY.

¶29

SHRI GOUS PASHA S/O KAISHAR, AGE NOT MENTIONED, R/O.: VINOB NAGAR, II CROSS, 1^ST MAIN,

¶30

DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶31

... RESPONDENT(S)

¶32

(BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN KANAPA CR NO.131/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.98,977/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

IN MFA NO.21893 OF 2011:

BETWEEN

... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND

¶41

SHRI NAGESH S/O. SIDDAPPA, AGE 20 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI, R/O.: HOSPET ROAD,

¶42

TQ & DIST:BELLARY.

¶43

SHRI GOUS PASHA S/O.KAISHAR, AGE NOT MENTIONED, R/O.: VINOB NAGAR, II CROSS, 1^ST MAIN,

¶44

DAVANAGERE, DIST:DAVANAGERE.

¶45

... RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶47

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN KANAPA CR NO.130/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,20,960/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶48

IN MFA NO.21892 OF 2011:

¶49

BETWEEN

¶50

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY,

¶51

: 4 :

¶52

NOW REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MISS RENUKA Y.RANEBENNUR, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RO CELL DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBLI.

¶53

... APPELLANT

¶54

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶55

AND

¶56

SHRI GOPAL S/O.ANANTAPPA, AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI, R/O.: ANANTPUR, TQ & DIST: BELLARY.

¶57

SHRI GOUS PASHA S/O.KAISHAR, AGE NOT MENTIONED, R/O.: VINOB NAGAR, II CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶58

... RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶60

RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶61

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN KANAPA CR NO.129/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.99,616/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶62

IN MFA NO.21891 OF 2011:

BETWEEN

... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶67

: 5 :

¶68

AND

¶69

SHRI RAGHUPATI S/O.MADAPPA, AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: EX-HAMALI, R/O TALUR ROAD, TQ & DIST:BELLARY.

¶70

SHRI GOUS PASHA S/O.KAISHAR, AGE NOT MENTIONED, R/O.: VINOB NAGAR, II CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶71

... RESPONDENTS

¶72

(BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶73

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN KANAPA CR NO.128/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, 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.

¶74

IN MFA NO.21895 OF 2011:

BETWEEN

... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND

¶80

SHRI CHANDRU S/O.PALAYYA, AGE 21 YEARS, OCC: EX-CLEANER, R/O.: NEAR RTC BUS STAND, TQ & DIST:BELLARY.

¶81

: 6 :

¶82

SHRI GOUS PASHA S/O.KAISHAR, AGE NOT MENTIONED, R/o.: VINOB NAGAR, II CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶83

... RESPONDENTS

¶84

(BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶85

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN KANAPA CR NO.132/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,41,120/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶86

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

¶87

JUDGMENT

¶88

The applications in Misc.Civl.No.104855 of 2011 in MFA No.21890 of 2011, Misc.Cvl.No.104867 of 2011 in MFA No.21894 of 2011, Misc.Cvl.No.104864 of 2011 in MFA No.21893 of 2011, Misc.Cvl.No.104861 of 2011 in MFA No.21892 of 2011, Misc.Cvl.No.104858 of 2011 in MFA No.21891 of 2011 and Misc.Cvl.No.104870 of 2011 in MFA No.21895 of 2011 filed for stay does not survive for consideration in view of the lapse of time from the date of filing of the applications to till date. Till today, no orders are

¶89

: 7 :

¶90

passed on the said applications. Accordingly, the

¶91

applications have become infructuous.

¶92

In MFA No.21895 of 2011, Shri Laxman B.Mannoddar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is no more and Shri Ravindra R.Mane, the learned counsel would appear for the appellant-Insurance Company, since he has already appeared in the connected matters.

¶93

Though the appeals were listed for admission,

¶94

with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals were taken up for final disposal.

¶95

The appellant-Insurance Company has filed these appeals questioning the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed in KANAPA CR Nos.339 of 2008 and 128 to 132 of 2009 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Bellary (for short “the Commissioner”).

¶96

: 8 :

¶97

On 14.02.2006, at about 10:30 hours the claimants were traveling in a truck bearing registration No.KA-17/3456 for unloading the bricks at a particular point at Davanagere. While traveling between Chitradurga and Davanagere on N.H.4, near Laxmisagar gate (14 kms. Towards east from Bharmasagar) the said truck was turtled, resulting in all six persons, who are traveling in the aforesaid truck got injured, though six persons are driver, loaders and cleaner, for which they have taken treatment. They have filed claim petitions before the Commissioner

¶98

and it was decided in their favour while awarding

¶99

compensation, which reads as under:

¶100

CfðzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ	ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥Àæw ªÀiÁºÉ gÀÆ.	ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì	gÉ°ªÉAl ¥sÁåPÀÖgÀ	PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ UÀ½PÁ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ	CºÀð ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À gÀÆ. UÀ¼À°è
ªÀÄÄ£ÁªÀgÀ ¥ÁµÁ, ZÁ®PÀ	4000	197.06	35	30	1,41,883
gÀWÀÄ¥Àw, ºÀªÀiÁ°	3000	222.71	21	30	1,20,263
UÉÆÃ¥Á®, ºÀªÀiÁ°	3000	221.37	22	25	99,616
£ÁUÉÃ±À, ºÀªÀiÁ°	3000	224.00	20	30	1,20,960
¸Áé«Ä, ºÀªÀiÁ°	3000	219.95	23	25	98,977
ZÀAzÀÄæ, QèÃ£Àgï	3500	224.00	20	30	1,41,121

¶101

: 9 :

¶102

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company submitted that the present appeals were presented on two issues namely the claimants have failed to produce X-ray reports relating to the nature of injuries suffered by them (fractures). Further, the author of the disability certificate was not the Doctor, who has given treatment to the injured persons. Thus, the Commissioner has committed an error in not appreciating the loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is on the higher side. Hence, the order of the Commissioner dated 30.11.2010 is liable to be set aside.

¶103

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 while resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the author of the disability certificate is the competent Doctor, who is a specialized in Orthopedic. He has been examined and cross-examined. The appellantInsurance Company has not elicited any information relating to non-production of X-ray report and so also

¶104

: 10 :

¶105

doubting the disability certificate. In the absence of eliciting the necessary information from the Doctor, who has been examined with reference to the disability certificate and not insisting for production of X-ray report, such contention taken in the present appeals are not tenable. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has not made out a case so as to interfere with the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Commissioner.

¶106

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶107

Question for consideration in the present appeals is as to whether the appellant-Insurance Company has made out any prima-facie case to interfere with the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Commissioner or not?

¶108

The appellant-Insurance Company has raised two issues namely non-production of X-ray report and the Doctor, who has issued disability certificate and examined in the matter, who is not treated the injured persons. The appellant-Insurance Company had an ample opportunity

¶109

: 11 :

¶110

before the Commissioner, if they are doubting the nature of injuries suffered and so also the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, who has been examined, the appellantInsurance Company has lost the opportunity of crossexamination of the Doctor insofar as eliciting the correctness of the disability certificate read with the injury certificate and so also insisting to furnish X-ray report. Having lost the opportunity before the Commissioner in respect of non-production of X-ray report and the Doctor, who has examined in the matter, who is stated to have not been treated the injured persons. Such contention cannot be appreciated for the reason that the Doctor, who is an Orthopedic and competent person to assess the disability of the injured persons.

¶111

In view of these facts and circumstances, the appellant-Insurance Company has not made out a case so as to interfere with the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company stands dismissed.

¶112

: 12 :

¶113

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned jurisdictional Court for the purpose of disbursement in accordance with law.

¶114

Sd/JUDGE

¶115

Vnp*

The Branch Manager. v. Shri. Munavar Pasha S/O Abdul Rahim Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager. v. Shri. Munavar Pasha S/O Abdul Rahim Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nazeerulla S/O. Shaukathali Vs Smt. Kurshidbi W/O. Hazaratali Jakati

Parashuram S/O. Hanamantappa Mulagund Vs Smt.Jyoti W/O. Parashuram Mulagund

Smt.Kamalavva W/O Karinaik Sunkad Vs Sri.Manjunath

The Divisional Manager, Vs Smt. Masudabanu W/O Abdulgani Mandakki

Smt. Sayarabanu W/O Mansoorahamad Vs Renilkumar S/O Ravendran

Clara W/O Jule D Souza Vs Anusaya W/O Tukaram Jambotkar