Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Smt Nanjamma

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2022MFA/615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against a compensation award. The court held that the Labour Officer's finding regarding the establishment of an employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the defendant-appropriatore was supported by evidence and admissible under the appellate provisions.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous First Appeal was dismissed. The records were transmitted to the trial court.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Nanjamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.615 OF 2014 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, V.V. ROAD, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT, REG OFFICE:144, 2^ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. NANJAMMA WIFE OF LATE SRI RANGASWAMI @ RAMASWAMI, AGED 42 YEARS.

¶13

SRI R. NANDISH SON OF LATE SRI RANGASWAMI @ RAMASWAMI, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.3, YELECHENAHALLY, KUTHATHI HUBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶14

¶15

SRI K. THIMMEGOWDA S/O. KEMPEGOWDA (OWNER), M/S. VENKATESWARA JAGARI INDUSTRIES, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, SRI K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3, & R-2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R-1)

¶18

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-8-2013 PASSED IN WC-II/ECA/FC/CR-02/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, MANDYA SUB DIVISION-2, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,68,340/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% FROM 3-12-2009 TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is at the instance of the insurer calling in question the award dated 27-8-2013 in

¶23

WC-II/ECA/FC/CR-02/2010 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Mandya.

¶24

¶25

The only substantial question of law contended

¶26

before this Court now at the time of hearing is that the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that the employee and employer relationship between respondent No.3 and the deceased-Rangaswami established is based on no evidence.

¶27

The claim petition proceeded on the allegation

¶28

that, the deceased was working as a Labourer in M/s. Venkateswara Industries run by respondent No.3 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and son the deceased respectively. On 3-11-2009 at about 6:30 p.m., while the deceased was working in alemane (jaggery industry), due to industrial accident, he slipped and fell into cauldron where the jaggery syrup was being boiled. It is stated that on account of severe burn injuries, he died

¶29

on 7-11-2009.

¶30

The employer in his statement of objections admitted the employee and employer relationship as well

¶31

¶32

as the employment related accident in which the deceased had died. The appellant-insurance company filed its separate statement of objections denying the material averments in the petition.

¶33

During enquiry, claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.19 were marked. Insurer did not examine any witnesses and no documents were marked.

¶34

Learned Commissioner after hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the record awarded compensation of Rs.3,68,340/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of incident till the date of judgment.

¶35

During hearing, the only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the employee and employer relationship is not established before the learned Commissioner in as much as claimant No.1 herself had

¶36

¶37

admitted during further cross-examination that the deceased was working in the jaggery industry by name and style M/s. Saptagiri Industries which was not covered by the policy of the appellant.

¶38

I have carefully perused the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the entire record.

¶39

The entire record, i.e. complaint, inquest, etc., clearly show that the deceased had died while working in M/s. Venkateswara Industries on account of the deceased accidentally falling into cauldron in which jaggery syrup was being boiled into consistency. In the claim petition, same facts have been set up and employer, i.e respondent No.3- K. Thimmegowda has admitted the same in his statement of objections. Even during cross-examination, the learned counsel for the insurer has put a suggestion to claimant No.1 that the deceased was working in M/s. Venkateswara Industries, which has been admitted by claimant No.1. In the further cross-examination of

¶40

¶41

which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the insurer that claimant No.1 initially admitted the suggestion and immediately thereafter, she has corrected herself by denying the suggestion to the effect that her husband was working at M/s. Saptagiri Industries. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention put up on behalf of the insurer in as much as

¶42

the learned Commissioner has passed the award after appraising the evidence and finding of the fact so recorded by him being supported by evidence, such a finding cannot be interfered with in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

¶43

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed . Transmit the

¶44

records to the trial Court, forthwith.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

kvk

The Branch Manager v. Smt Nanjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Smt Nanjamma

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

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Sonu Joshi Vs General Manager

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga Ankolekar

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Chandrappa Vs Mohamad Ismail

Sri. B. Annu Vs the Manager

Sri Venkatesh Sheshappa Shetty Vs Smt Jayanthi Subhash Mahale