Dismissed

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sri Manju Urufmanjunath

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2023MFA/1098/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two first appeals by the insurer were filed challenging compensation awards under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The High Court rejected the insurer's contentions regarding name discrepancies and medical evidence, finding no malafide intent by claimants. The appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed and the judgments/awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation were confirmed.

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Sri Manju… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1098 OF 2012 (WC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1099 OF 2012

¶10

IN MFA N0.1098/2012

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGD. OFFICE-3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. S. SRISHAILA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. MANJU URUF MANJUNATH, S/O CHIKKIAH, MAJOR.

¶18

KUM. PAVITHRA, D/O MANJU URUF MANJUNATH, MAJOR.

¶19

KUM. RATHNA, D/O MANJU URUF MANJUNATH, MAJOR.

¶20

KIRAN KUMAR,

¶21

S/O MANJU URUF MANJUNATH, MAJOR, R/OF SRIRANGA EXTENSION,

¶22

HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶25

SRI. ANEEF, S/O SHAHAMAJID, MAJOR, NO.39,TRANSPORT CENTRE, AZADPUR, DELHI.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5-VIDE ORDER DATED: 21/09/2017; NOTICE DEEMED TO COMPLETE)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:26.10.2010 PASSED IN WCA/F/SR146/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,76,740/- WITH INTEREST 12% AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL THE DATE OF ACCIDENT.

¶29

IN MFA N0.1099/2012

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGD. OFFICE-3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶32

…APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. S. SRISHAILA., ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

SMT. MANI, MAJOR,

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶37

¶38

W/O NAGARAJU,

¶39

R/AT SRINAGAR EXTENTION, HASSAN.

¶40

SRI. ANEEF, S/O SHAHAMAJID, MAJOR, NO.39,TRANSPORT CENTRE, AZADPUR, DELHI.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-NOTICE IN DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE)

¶43

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:26.10.2010 PASSED IN WCA/F/SR-35/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,13,878/WITH INTEREST @ 12% FROM AFTER 30 DAYS OF ACCIDENT TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.

¶44

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

¶45

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶46

M.F.A.No.1098/2012 is filed by the Insurance

¶47

Company challenging the order and award passed in proceedings No. WCA/F/SR 146/2007 dated 26.10.2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan which is in respect of death of an employee who is claiming to be an employee.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶50

M.F.A.No.1099/2012 is filed by the Insurance

¶51

Company challenging the order and award in proceedings No.WCA/NCF/SR 35/2004 dated 26.10.2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan, which is in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant-employee stating that the claimant employee has sustained injuries in the accident.

¶52

The briefs facts of the case are that the claimant in MFA No.1099/2012 and the deceased Smt. Boramma were working as loaders in a lorry bearing No.HR-46/A-7781 which is belonging to respondent No.1. On 11.10.2003, as per the instruction of respondent No.1, the claimant in MFA No.1099/2012 and deceased Boramma went for loading potato into the lorry and after loading, while returning to Hassan near Ankanayakanahalli, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the lorry upside down. Therefore, the claimant in MFA No.1099/2012 sustained injuries and deceased-

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶55

Boramma died while taking treatment in District Govt. Hospital, Hassan on 02.02.2006.

¶56

Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

¶57

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

¶58

Company in M.F.A.No.1098/2012 contended that it is the case of death of an employee stating that Smt. Boramma and Jayamma are two different persons but the name of the deceased is shown as Boaramma @ Jayamma but the doctor has stated that he has treated the patient by name Jayamma only. Therefore, in the evidence of claimants that Boramma @ Jayamma is one person only. Hence, there is a misrepresentation before the learned Commissioner that the husband and children being the legal representatives of Boramma. Hence, the claim is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to set-aside the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner.

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶60

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.1099/2012 argued that the name of Dore in the medical records was strike of and written as Mani and hence, false claim is filed and it is further submitted that there is discrepancy in the evidence of the doctor, the medical evidence and evidence of the claimant suffers where the injuries caused to the left hand or right hand. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

¶62

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant justified the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner and the claim petition is filed by the legal representatives of Jayamma@ Boramma and none else thus there are minor discrepancies found in the claim petition that cannot be made ground to reject claim petition.

¶63

It is further submitted that the claimants are belonging to lower strata in the society and they are not well versed in legal procedures. Therefore, some discrepancy might have occurred and that cannot be

¶64

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶65

enlarged so as to reject the claim petition and in this regard, learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and therefore, prays to dismiss the appeals.

¶66

IN M.F.A.NO.1098/2012:

¶67

The present appeal is filed by the legal representatives of deceased Boramma @ Jayamma being the husband and children of the deceased. It is grievance of insurance company that the claim petition is filed on account of death of Boramma but the claimants have stated that Jayamma is the wife of claimant/respondent No.1 and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, Boramma is a different person and the claimants are not concerned to Boramma. Hence, it is case of the Insurance Company that the claimants have misrepresented in filing the claim petition by claiming that they are the husband and children of Boramma.

¶68

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶69

It is pertinent to note here that the employees were traveling in the goods lorry being authorized representatives of goods as a loader and unloader and after loading the potato commodity, while returning to Hassan, the deceased died in the accident and another sustained injuries in the accident. Claimant No.1 is stating that he has filed the claim petition on account of death of Boramma @ Jayamma. Learned counsel for Insurance Company is much harping on evidence of the doctor.

¶70

P.W.2 - Dr. K. Shankar has deposed that he has given treatment to one Jayamma on 12.10.2003.

¶71

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration:

¶72

(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased Boramma and Jayamma are two different persons and the claim petition filed by the husband and children of Boramma is said to be misrepresented one?

¶73

(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-insurance company has

¶74

- 9 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶75

successfully established that Smt. Mani and Dore are two different persons and the nature of injuries stated in description entirely goes to reject the claim petition?

¶76

But upon considering the medical evidence such

¶77

as wound certificate, discharge summary, inpatient record etc., the name is clearly shown as Mani W/o. Nagaraju and upon considering the date of accident and the admission details of hospital, claimant-Mani had sustained injuries and thus, admitted to the hospital. There may be some mistake in mentioning the name but that always could not be a ground to reject claim made before the Commissioner. If there is any intention in making misrepresentation while filing claim petition, then there could have been mentioning of one name only as per their convenience and proceeded with the case by mentioning the same name in every stage. Therefore, as discussed above, the claimant is a coolie by profession belonging to lower strata in the society and they are not well versed in legal procedures. As such, quite-naturally, some

¶78

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶79

discrepancy might have been occurred. Therefore, under these circumstances, the entire case on all its angle to be considered rather than by adopting method of pick and choose either from this or from that while considering the claim petitions. Therefore, this Court does not find any malafide intention on the part of the claimant for filing claim petition just to secure compensation from the insurance company. But whatever discrepancies might have been occurred that does not go to the core of the case in rejecting the claim petition in toto .

¶80

The claimant-Mani had stated that her right

¶81

hand was fractured and the same is reflected in the wound certificate and in other medical records. The doctor has stated that the left hand of the claimant was fractured. On the notice issued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant Mani, it is stated that left and right hand bones of the claimant were fractured. As such, with these discrepancies, the insurance company has contended that the claimant has not denied in mentioning the injuries

¶82

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶83

sustained on her hand and consequently expressed doubt regarding the claim petition. But the claimant had stated that her right hand was fractured and it is corroborated by documentary medical evidence wherein it is stated that she has sustained injuries to her right hand. Just because by the evidence of doctor, who has stated that the left hand of the claimant was fractured that does not disprove the case of the claimant.

¶84

The counsel while issuing notice to the owner might have stated that the left hand of claimant was fractured and the same may be considered as typographical error. But where the evidence of both the claimant and the material on record show that the right hand of the claimant was fractured and the same is corroborated by documentary medical evidence. As such, the discrepancies found could not go into the core of the case of the claimant so as to reject the claim of the claimants in toto .

¶85

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶86

Therefore, by considering the overall facts and

¶87

circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence on its entirety, the claimant had sustained injuries to her right hand because the claimant herself is the best person to state on which part of body she has sustained injury in the accident and not only this, her evidence is corroborated by documentary medical evidence. Accordingly, this Court has opined that there is no merit involved in these appeals as there is no misrepresentation in making claim petitions and the case is made out from appreciation of record. Hence, the learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and granted compensation.

¶88

In the cross-examination, it is revealed that Boramma did not come to the hospital. Therefore, it is submitted that Jayamma is different and Boramma is different. But the claim petition is filed by stating that Boramma died and in the petition, it is claimed as Boramma and Jayamma are one and the same person.

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶90

13 -

¶91

Upon considering the evidence of PW.2-Doctor adduced in his cross-examination whereby he has stated that Boramma has not come to hospital to take treatment. The doctor might have treated person by name Jayamma as the said name alone is found in the medical records. In the medical record, only the name of Jayamma is mentioned and the doctor might have said on the basis of hospital records that he has given treatment to Jayamma and the said Boramma has not come to the hospital. The doctor is not a competent person to state that whether Jayamma and Boramma are two different persons or one and the same person and he can only say the name of patient/injured whose name is appearing in the hospital records. Just because the name of Jayamma is shown in the hospital records and the version of claimant is by stating that both Boramma and Jayamma are one and the same person, as such, just because from the evidence of doctor, it cannot be said that Boramma and Jayamma are two different persons. The deceased and claimants are belonging to lower strata in the society working as coolies.

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶94

Hence, it cannot be said by the documentary evidence i.e., hospital records alone where the name is shown as Jayamma and the said Jayamma and Boramma are two different persons.

¶95

It is stated that both Jayamma and Boramma

¶96

are one and the same person. As such, just because the name of Jayamma is shown in the hospital records and as per the version of the doctor that Boramma has not come to the hospital to take treatment that does not mean that Boramma @ Jayamma has not taken treatment. Moreover, the evidence of PW.2-doctor is based on the hospital record. The doctor did not aware of personal details of person who has admitted in the hospital for treatment. Even though the doctor has provided treatment to the claimant, by that time, the case is ripened for recording evidence before the learned Commissioner. There is a time gap of years together and quite-naturally the doctor did not remember whether the particular person had come to him for treatment.

¶97

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶98

Therefore, whatever the evidence given by the doctor after lapse of some years regarding giving treatment to the patients is based only on hospital records. As such, quitenaturally PW.2-doctor on the basis of hospital record has given his evidence. Henceforth, just because only the name of Jayamma is appearing in the hospital records and based on evidence of PW.2-doctor, it cannot be said that Boramma and Jayamma are two different persons. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find any merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for respondent-insurance company. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶99

In MFA No.1099/2012:

¶100

In the present case, the claim petition is filed by one Mani stating that she has sustained injuries in the accident. In the hospital records, at some place, the name of person by name Dore is strike out and written as Mani. But upon considering the documentary evidence like wound certificate, case sheet, discharge summary, out

¶101

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶102

16 -

¶103

patient kit, etc., the name of patient is shown as Mani. But in the records of hospital, the name is mentioned as Mani W/o. Nagaraju.

¶104

Further, upon considering the quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, the learned Commissioner has taken the parameters correctly and has rightly determined the compensation to be awarded to the claimant. Moreover, the claimants have not preferred any appeal for enhancing the compensation by stating that the parameters adopted by the learned Commissioner are not correct. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct, just and proper by considering all the parameters as set-out by statutes. Hence, there is no need to make interference with regard to quantum of compensation. As such, the appeals are found to be devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, I answer the aforesaid substantial questions of law in 'negative'.

¶105

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶106

17 -

¶107

NC: 2023:KHC:21896 MFA No. 1098 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 1099 of 2012

¶108

ORDER

¶109

i. The appeals are dismissed .

¶110

ii. The judgments and award passed in proceedings Nos.WCA/F/SR 146/2007 dated 26.10.2010 and WCA/NCF/SR 35/2004 dated 26.10.2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan are hereby confirmed.

¶111

iii. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶112

iv. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶113

v. Costs made easy.

¶114

Sd/JUDGE

¶115

GJM - paras 1 to 11 SSD - paras 12 to 22 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:STK

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sri Manju Urufmanjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sri Manju Urufmanjunath

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. Saraswathamma Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri E Kumar Vs Smt Munilakshmamma

The Regional Manager Vs Smt Susheelamma @ Susheela

B K Basavaraju Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri M Manohar Kini Vs Sri B Ibrahim

Chikkabeeramma Vs Vishala W/O Govinda