Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Noor Ahammed S/O Jaffar Vali

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024MFA/21559/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Dharwad Bench dismissed an appeal filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against a compensation award under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court held that the employer-employee relationship existed and the accident occurred during duty, sustaining the awarded quantum of Rs. 1,01,349/-.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed as meritless; amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.

The Divisional Manager Vs Noor Ahammed S/O Jaffar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21559 OF 2012 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY, REP. THROUGH ITS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI. REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. NOOR AHAMMED S/O. JAFFAR VALI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: EX-CLEANER, R/O: DEVI NAGAR, BELLARY, TQ and DIST: BELLARY.

¶13

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.13
16:05:58
+0530

¶14

SRI. BABULAL PARASRAMPURIA, R/O: H.U.F. ROYAL CIRCLE, R, TH BUILDINGS, DIST: BELLARY, (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-36/709)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE W.C.ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.11.2011, PASSED IN WCA/CR NO.170/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-2, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,01,349/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶20

Appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as quantum awarded in WCA/CR No.170/2007 dated 28.11.2011 by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (for short, ‘CWC’).

¶21

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of this case are as under:

¶22

3.1 A claim petition came to be filed by Noor Ahmad on the ground that he was working under the first respondent in a lorry bearing No.KA-36/709 as a cleaner. On 16.09.2006 when he was proceeding from Vithalapura Jindal factory and size-stones were being loaded in the lorry, at about 2.00 p.m., there was leak in the diesel tank and therefore he wanted to check up the tank. While he was getting down from the lorry to check the fuel tank, he

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶24

fell down and suffered fracture injuries in the leg. Therefore, he laid a claim.

¶25

3.2 Notice of the claim petition was issued and

¶26

owner appeared and admitted the fact of employer and employee relationship, salary being paid to the claimant and also the unfortunate incident and contended that the lorry is duly insured and therefore Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶27

3.3 Insurance Company filed a detailed objection denying the entire claim petition averments.

¶28

3.4 Learned CWC after raising necessary issues, recorded evidence of claimant. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the Insurance Company and claimant, learned CWC allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,01,349/- with interest at 12% per annum from 30 days after the accident.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶30

Said judgment is in question on behalf of

¶31

Insurance Company.

¶32

Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for the

¶33

appellant – Insurance Company vehemently contended that the accident has not occurred as is contended by the claimant.

¶34

He further contended that on the alleged date of incident, the vehicle was not even operated and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶35

He also contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned CWC is also on higher side.

¶36

Respondents though served with notice,

¶37

remained absent.

¶38

In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

¶39

this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶41

On such perusal of material on record,

¶42

statement made by the owner of the lorry clearly shows that there existed employer and employee relationship between the claimant and first respondent.

¶43

According to the claimant, when size-stones were loaded and were about to transport from Vithalapura Jindal Factory, there was leak in the diesel tank of the lorry. To check up the same, claimant who was the cleaner in the lorry while getting down, fell down from the lorry. At that juncture, he suffered injury and there was fracture in the leg.

¶44

The incident has been reported to the owner. Even though there is no complaint to the police, since the incident has taken place when the claimant was discharging his duty, he rightly laid a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act which has been rightly appreciated by the learned CWC and allowed the claim petition in part.

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶46

Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of

¶47

appellant - Insurance Company that there was no incumbent for the claimant to laid a claim is incorrect and cannot be countenanced in law.

¶48

This would take this Court to the next question

¶49

as to whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned CWC is just and appropriate.

¶50

The learned CWC has taken into consideration

¶51

the relevant aspects of the matter namely salary being paid and disability has sustained by the claimant and has rightly awarded Rs.1,01,349/- as compensation which requires no interference at the hands of this Court.

¶52

In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.

¶55

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶56

- 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2400 MFA No. 21559 of 2012

¶57

(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted

¶58

to the learned CWC for disbursement in

accordance with law.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

The Divisional Manager v. Noor Ahammed S/O Jaffar Vali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Noor Ahammed S/O Jaffar Vali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shantavva W/O. Basappa Kamatad Vs the Divisional Manager

Shri.Dhaku Mahadev Jadhav, Vs Shri.Indrakumar Parashuram Majukar

Gangamma W/O. Channappa Banakar Vs Maruti Doni S/O. Lakshmappa

Shri Maheshwar S/O. Veerasangayya Hiremath Vs Shri. Chidananda S/O. Durgundayya Hiremath

Andappa S/O. Basappa Naganur @ Nidagundi Vs Falvia Carlo W/O. Vincent Prakash Carlo

Anusuya W/O. Gajanan Badiger Vs Smt. Basavva W/O. Basavantappa Mestri Alias Badiger