Dismissed

The Manager v. Puttarangamma @ Rangamma

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2020MFA/3620/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal against a workmen's compensation award, the High Court held that a deposition admitting the claimant was a passenger was not conclusive proof as it was not cross-examined. The Commissioner was justified in relying on the owner's pleading admitting an employment relationship, dismissing the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the award of compensation by the Commissioner remains valid.

The Manager Vs Puttarangamma @ Rangamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3620/2010(WC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Muddappa Complex Vivekananda Road, Tumkur Now represented by its Regional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Subharam Complex No.144, M.G.Road Bangalore – 560 001 … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI A.N.Krishna Swamy, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Smt.Puttarangamma @ Rangamma W/o Hanumanthegowda Now aged about 52 years R/o Veerapura Village, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District

¶13

Bheemanna S/o Nagappa Age: Major R/o Hemadore Village, Sira Taluk … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI Sreerangaiah.L. ADV. FOR R1; Sri.Sampath Bapat, Adv. For R2)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.03.2008 PASSED IN WCA/CR-129/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR

¶16

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶17

¶18

OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.41,334/-. THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This Insurer’s appeal arises out of the award dated 19.03.2008 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Tumkur (‘the Commissioner’ for short) in WCA CR 129/2005. By the impugned award the Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs.41,334/- payable by the appellant with interest at 12% p.a. within 30 days from the date of the award.

¶21

On 19.03.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. when respondent No.1/claimant Puttarangamma @ Rangamma was traveling in Tractor-Trailer No.KA-06 T 5651 5652 near Dyavarakere tank bund within Pattanayakanahalli village limits the vehicle met with an accident. In the accident the claimant suffered injuries.

¶22

Respondent No.2 was the registered owner of the said Tractor-Trailer. Respondent No.1 filed claim

¶23

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶24

¶25

petition before the Commissioner claiming that she was working as Labour in the said Tractor under respondent No.2 herein and in the accident she suffered fracture of left clavicle, left elbow dislocation and other injuries. She claimed that the accident, consequent injuries and the disability occurred during the course of employment. Thus she claimed the compensation as per schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

¶26

The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. The owner of the vehicle and the appellant were impleaded as respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Commissioner. The second respondent filed objections admitting jural relationship of employer and employee. He claimed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the appellant has to indemnify the damages.

¶27

The appellant contested the claim petition denying the jural relationship of employer and employee between the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It claimed that the claimant was travelling in the Tractor as an

¶28

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶29

¶30

unauthorized passenger, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation.

¶31

In support of her claim, the claimant got herself examined as PW.1 and Dr.Anjankumar Valmiki as PW.2. On her behalf, the FIR, Charge sheet, Motor vehicle Inspector’s report, wound certificate and spot mahazar were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 respectively. The power of attorney holder of the second respondent was examined as RW.1 and on his behalf, the General power of attorney, the copy of the Insurance policy and the copy of the order passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.5775/2003 were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3.

¶32

On behalf of the appellant, its administrative Officer was examined.

¶33

The Commissioner after hearing the parties by the impugned award granted compensation as aforesaid holding that the first respondent was the employee under the second respondent and she suffered injuries in the accident which took place during the course of employment and arising out of the employment.

¶34

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶35

¶36

8. Further relying on the evidence of the doctor

¶37

and the medical records, the Commissioner held that respondent No.1 suffered 15% permanent disability to the entire body and she was receiving Rs.3,000/- per month as wages. The Commissioner assessed her age at 50 years and applying the relevant factor 153.09 awarded compensation of Rs.41,334/-.

¶38

This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law:

¶39

“Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in saddling liability on the Insurance Company by ignoring material evidence placed on record in the light of admission of the claimant that she had traveled as passenger in the trailer ?”

¶40

Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for

¶41

the appellant submits that the first respondent in her evidence before the Magistrate in the Criminal proceedings regarding the accident admitted that she

¶42

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶43

¶44

was traveling as a passenger, but the Commissioner ignored such admission.

¶45

It was contended that in the criminal proceedings relating to the offences of causing accident by rash and negligent driving, there was an admission by respondent No.1 in her deposition that she was traveling in the offending vehicle as passenger.

¶46

It is no doubt true that respondent No.1 admitted that she has given evidence in the criminal case. As per Section 31 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 admissions are not conclusive proof unless they are proved against the party making such admissions. In the cross-examination of respondent No.1, the alleged deposition was not confronted to her and admitted in evidence. Therefore the said alleged admission was not proved in accordance with law.

¶47

The claimant in the cross-examination denied the suggestion that she was not working under respondent No.2 as coolie, but she was traveling as a

¶48

M.F.A.NO.3620/2010

¶49

¶50

passenger. The second respondent in his statement of objections clearly admitted that the claimant was working as a coolie in his tractor. That was an admission in the pleading which carries more

¶51

evidentiary value in the proceedings.

¶52

Having regard to the material on record, the Commissioner was justified in accepting the case of the appellant that she was working under the second respondent as a coolie in the tractor. The Commissioner was justified in saddling the liability on the appellant. Answering the substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.

¶53

The amount in deposit, if any shall be transmitted to the Office of the Workmen's Compensation

¶54

Commissioner, Tumkur.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

akc

The Manager v. Puttarangamma @ Rangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Puttarangamma @ Rangamma

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

The Manager, Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Smt Susheelabai

Smt Chithralekha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Geetha Laxmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Vs the Range Forest Officer

Mr Shabarish @ Dolu Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthegowda Vs State of Karnataka