Partly allowed

Holebasu S/O. Mahadevappa Channashetti v. Parappa S/O. Ningappa Channashetti

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022MFA/20329/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal dealt with a claim for workmen's compensation rejected by the Labour Officer. The High Court, re-evaluating the evidence, held the injuries occurred during the course of employment and allowed the appeal in part, determining the compensation payable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation fixed at Rs.3,25,344/- plus medical expenses and interest.

Holebasu S/O. Mahadevappa Channashetti Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 20329 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20329 OF 2012 (WC-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HOLEBASU S/O. MAHADEVAPPA CHANNASHETTI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL, R/O. TOTAGATTI, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELGUAM.

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PARAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA CHANNASHETTI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. TOTAGATTI, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELGUAM.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DHARWAD.

¶14

(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- NOTICE SERVED)

…APPELLANT

…RESPONDENTS

MFA No. 20329 of 2012

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE W.C.ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2009 PASSED IN WCNF NO.202/2006 BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, BAGALKOT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The claimant is in appeal challenging the rejection of his claim petition by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bagalkot (for short “the Commissioner”) in WCNF No.202/2006.

¶23

The claimant claimed that on 02.10.2005 he was employed as a Hamali-cum-coolie in a tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA-24/4793-94. On the said day, on the instructions of his employer, the claimant loaded bags of sunflower seeds grown in the land of the owner and was unloading them at Lokapur Mill. At that time, the bags on which he was standing moved and he fell down from the tractor-trailer and suffered comminuted fracture of his left thigh. The claimant was admitted at Dr.Naik Hospital where

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 20329 of 2012

¶26

he was treated as an inpatient for a period of twenty days. The claimant, therefore, filed a claim petition against the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer.

¶27

The owner of the tractor-trailer contended that the claimant was employed with him on daily wages of Rs.100/-. He also admitted that on 02.10.2005, when the claimant was employed as Hamali in the tractor-trailer, he suffered injuries when two bags slipped from the tractor due to which the claimant fell down and suffered injuries.

¶28

The insurer, on the other hand, contended that the claimant was not employed in the tractor and that there was no relationship of employer and employee. It also denied that the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment. It also denied the wages allegedly paid to the claimant. Based on these rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.

¶29

The claimant was examined as PW1 and he marked Exs.P1 and 2. He examined PW2 and PW3 who did not turn up for cross-examination. The insurer did not lead

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 20329 of 2012

¶32

any evidence but marked a copy of the policy of insurance by consent.

¶33

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the commissioner held that the claimant was unable to establish that injuries suffered by him were employment related injuries, when he was employed with the owner of the tractor-trailer and hence, rejected the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶34

The claim petition disclosed that the claimant suffered injuries when two bags of sunflower seeds on which he was standing slipped and fell down and suffered fracture of left thigh. It is therefore, clear that the claimant was employed in the tractor-trailer in question and was unloading bags from it. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that he had suffered injuries during the course of such employment. Since he was unloading the bags, it has to be construed that the claimant had suffered injuries out of employment. Since the insurance policy of the vehicle in question covered risk to one employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 20329 of 2012

¶37

insurer cannot avoid its liability. The insurer did not dispute the fact that the claimant had suffered injuries when he was employed but it merely suggested to PW1 that he was not employed with employer. The oral and documentary evidence point to the fact that the claimant suffered employment related injuries out of and in the course of employment and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the claim petition deserves to be interfered. The insurer of the Tractor-Trailer is liable to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.3,25,344/- (4,000 x 60% x 135.56).

¶38

Though the claimant had not examined the doctor, having regard to the fact that the claimant had suffered comminuted fracture of left thigh, the disability can safely be assessed at 10%. Since the claimant was treated at a private hospital, he is entitled to medical expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

¶39

Hence, the appeal is allowed in part and a sum of Rs.3,35,344/- is determined as compensation payable by the

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 20329 of 2012

¶42

insurer of the offending vehicle along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 30 days from the date of the accident till the date of deposit.

¶43

The insurer is directed to deposit the

¶44

compensation along with interest before the concerned Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶45

Upon deposit, 50% of the compensation and interest shall be deposited in the name of the claimant in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

YAN- paragraphs 1 to 7 CLK – paragraphs 8 till end. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Holebasu S/O. Mahadevappa Channashetti v. Parappa S/O. Ningappa Channashetti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Holebasu S/O. Mahadevappa Channashetti v. Parappa S/O. Ningappa Channashetti

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

Union of India Vs Devendrappa S/O Chanabasappa Belkendi

Savita W/O Praveen Shivalli Vs Praveen S/O Basavanneppa Shivalli

The State of Karnataka Vs Chidananda S/O Ishwaryya Bagalkot

The Manager Vs Yunusali S/O Peerasab Kotabal

Ashok Narayan Polyekar, Vs Channamallikarjun Swamy

Sameer Baburao Polyekar, Vs Channamallikarjun Swamy