The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8439 OF 2014 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RUKMINI W/O LATE MANJU AGE 27 YEARS, 2. MASTER MANOJ S/O LATE MANJU AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1. 3. CHANNAIAH S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2015) ALL ARE R/O SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN:571 313. …APPELLANTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SAYED JABIULLA, S/O SAYED NOOR, NO.4172, MAKKAMOHALLA, DODDA WATER TANK ROAD, CHAMRAJANAGAR TOWN, PIN:571 313. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GIRISH COMPLEX, CHAMARAJANAGAR. PIN:571 313. (BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED27.02.2013 PASSED IN KaaACHA/WCA/FC/RC-96/2007 THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ON COMMISSIONER AT CHAMARAJNAGAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. FILE OF THE THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act'), being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2013, passed by the Labour Commissioner & Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Chamarajanagara District, Chamarajanagar, (for short, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR `Labour Commissioner'), in KaaAcha/WCA/FC/CR- 96/2007. 2. After hearing the parties, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law : Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in dismissing the claim petition? 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the husband of claimant No.1 by name Manju was serving with respondent No.1 as a loader and unloader in his lorry bearing registration No.CTO-9414 about five to six months prior to the incident. There exists master and servant relationship between the deceased, as well as respondent No.1. On 13.05.2007, as per the directions of respondent No.1, deceased Manju went in the said lorry to load the sand. Deceased along with others loaded sand in the lorry. Thereafter, the lorry driver directed the deceased to fill water into the radiator of the lorry. As per the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR direction of the driver, deceased went to a stream to fetch water, wherein he drowned and died. 4. It is the further case of the claimants that deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and in addition to that, he was also getting batta of Rs.50/- per day. Claimant No.1, being the wife of deceased Manju lodged a complaint before Chamarajanagar Police Station, which was registered in UDR No.8/2007. The claimant No.1 is wife, claimant No.2 is son and claimant No.3 is father of deceased. They were depending upon the deceased. Claimant No.3 died during the pendency of this appeal. 5. Respondents have not filed any objections to the claim petition before the Labour Commissioner. 6. The Labour Commissioner held enquiry. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and she produced four documents in support of her contentions. Respondents have not led evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR 7. After hearing the parties, the Labour Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimant failed to prove their case. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants and respondent No.2 - insurer. 9. My findings on the above substantial question of law is in the Affirmative for following reasons: Claimant No.1 in her claim petition filed on 17.07.2007 stated in detail about the incident; relationship of claimants with the deceased. The respondents though appeared before the Labour Commissioner, but did not file objections and denied said averments stated in the petition. 10. PW-1 (petitioner No.1) in her evidence reiterated petition averments. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her husband was working with respondent No.1 about an year prior to his death. On the date of the incident, he loaded the sand to the lorry and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR thereafter, he went to fetch water as directed by the driver of the lorry. Even his death is disputed by respondent No.2. However, Ex.P-1 UDR report and Ex.P-4 spot mahazar, corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 regarding death of Manju. Post mortem report reveals that death had occurred due to drowning. In the detailed cross-examination, nothing was brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. 11. The best person to deny the case of the claimant is respondent No.1. He did not dispute the case of claimants. 12. The Labour Commissioner did not consider Exs.P-1 and P-4. Claimant is an illiterate and a rustic villager and might not understand legal formalities. It was an UDR case. Except Exs.P-1 and P-4, there may not be any other document pertaining to this case. Since the deceased was serving as a loader and unloader, even there might not be any records to prove employment and payment of the salary. If any record is available, it must - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR be with respondent No.1. He has not disputed the case of claimant. Even Respondent No.2 did not file objections to claim Petition. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Commissioner ought to have accepted the case of claimants, but, without justifying reasons, disbelieved her evidence. By the evidence of claimant, it is proved that there exist relationship of employee and employer between deceased and Respondent No.1. 13. The case of the claimants as stated above is that deceased went to fetch water to fill into the radiator of the lorry and at that time, he drowned and died. Therefore, death was arising out of and in the course of employment. In a similar facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Poonam Devi and others -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited,1 held that such acts of an employee shall be considered as "accident arising out of and in the course of the 1 (2020) 4 SCC 55 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR employment." In that case, the driver of the lorry due to hot weather, went to fetch water and take bath to the canal. he slipped into the canal and died, in such facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex court held as above. In this case, deceased went into the stream to fetch water to fill in to the radiator of the lorry of employer; he slipped into the stream and died. Hence, said death is arising out of and in the course of employment and hence, Respondent are liable to pay compensation. 14. According to the evidence of PW-1, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the incident. In Ex.P-3 i.e., post mortem report, age of the deceased is mentioned as 26 years. As per the Schedule, the suitable factor applicable to the case on hand is 215.28. The incident had taken place during the year 2007 i.e., prior to amendment to Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and 50% of the same has to be deducted. Therefore, the amount of compensation - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR for which the claimants are entitled is Rs.1,500/- x 215.28 = Rs.3,22,920/-. 15. It is not in dispute that the said lorry was insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. 16. For the above said discussions, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
Decision
ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 27.02.2013, passed by the Labour Commissioner & Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Chamarajanagara District, Chamarajanagar, in No.KaaAcha/WCA/FC/CR-96/2007is set aside. iii) Claimants No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,22,920/-. along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the said amount, from the date of petition till its - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20426 MFA No. 8439 of 2014 HC-KAR realization, excluding delayed period of 599 days in filing the appeal. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from the date of award before the Labour Commissioner. v) Both the claimants are entitled to equal apportionment. Claimant No.2 is minor and hence, the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in his name till he attains the age of majority. The amount awarded to claimant No.1 shall be released in her favour on due identification. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Labour Commissioner. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29