Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 400 (KAR)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. B. RAMASWAMY

2005-06-24

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2005
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, bellary. The substantial question of law raised in these appeals include whether the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had the authority to pass the award contrary to section 21 (1) and the proviso thereto under Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, in entertaining the claim petition in respect of a person who had suffered injuries within the limits of another Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and whether Commissioner for Workmen's compensation can ignore the glaring discrepancies and the material on the record to indicate that the claim was concocted and false. ( 2 ) MR. B. C. Seetharama Rao, counsel for the appellant, drew my attention to several aspects. Firstly, that the accident in which the claimants were injured had occurred in Andhra Pradesh and the injured was treated in Andhra Pradesh, the claimants reside permanently in Andhra pradesh and the employer has its registered office also there. The accident was reported at Alur in Kurnool District, Andhra pradesh. The F. I. R. was filed by claimants in M. F. A. No. 5890 of 2003 and having regard to the age of the claimants, it could not be said that they were capable of doing any labour work. He also pointed out that the vehicle was proceeding from Madhya pradesh to Karnataka carrying coal and it cannot be said that the loaders were being carried in the lorry, inter-State, in view of rule 100 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. ( 3 ) PER contra, the counsel for the respondents would contend that the defence available to the insurance company are circumscribed by section 149 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and that the insurance company is not in a position to raise any defence other than what are provided under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the appeals are not maintainable in the absence of an order under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and further that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents would further contend that the claimants have asserted that they were residing in bellary and there being no bar for filing the claim petition at Bellary, the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation or a falsity of the claim, are wholly irrelevant and relies upon the decisions reported in (Sic. ILR) 1992 Kar 1325 and ILR 2004 Kar 461. ( 5 ) IN considering the rival contentions, section 21 of the Act is noted, which reads as follows:"venue of proceedings and transfer.- (1) Where any matter under this Act is to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made hereunder, be done by or before the commissioner for the area in which- (a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or (b) the workman or in case of his death the dependant claiming the compensation ordinarily resides; or (c) the employer has his registered office: provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned. " ( 6 ) FROM the records, it is seen that the accident had occurred in Andhra Pradesh, the injured was treated at Andhra Pradesh and that the police complaint was lodged there. The single circumstance that claimants have shown their address at Bellary in lodging the claim petition would certainly raise a clear doubt as to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation who would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. This is an aspect, which goes to the very jurisdiction of the Commissioner for the workmen's Compensation for entertaining the claim petition. The legislature in its wisdom has prescribed under section 21 of the Act, that the first requirement of the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is to ascertain that the claim would not lie before any other Commissioner and if it is possible that claim would be within the jurisdiction of some other Commissioner, that a notice should be issued to such other Commissioner, before processing the claim. This exercise is necessary obviously in order to avoid dual claims. This exercise is necessary obviously in order to avoid dual claims. It is apparent from the record that no such notice has been issued and this procedure is a mandatory requirement, which has been apparently overlooked. Therefore, in the absence of a notice, in the first instance, by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary to the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Kurnool, the same was not capable of being processed in the first instance. ( 7 ) THE second circumstance, that the claimants claimed as labourers in spite of their advanced age and that the vehicle involved was moving inter-State and the improbability of loaders being carried from madhya Pradesh to Karnataka, being a glaring circumstance, it is difficult to envisage the manner in which the Commissioner has proceeded to entertain and allow the claims. Hence, the very jurisdiction of the commissioner having been questioned, the embargo placed on the defence that may be set up by the insurance company and the grounds on which an appeal can be filed, could not come in the way of the insurance company raising a substantial question of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain the claim petition. In this light of the matter, I hold that appeals deserve to be allowed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeals are allowed and the awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary, are set aside. The matter is remitted to the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary with the following directions: (a) Notice shall be issued in the first instance to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool, Andhra pradesh, before taking up the matter for fresh consideration; (b) The material on record is required to be sifted with greater care and circumspection, in the light of the observations made hereinabove; (c) To dispose of the claims in accordance with law. The amount in deposit may be refunded to the appellant insurance company. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .