Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 750 (KAR)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ramareddy

2018-06-28

KRISHNA S.DIXIT

body2018
JUDGMENT : Krishna S. Dixit, J. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.04.2010 whereby, the claim petition of the respondent - claimants came to be allowed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereafter 'Commissioner') awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,22,710/- with interest as prescribed by law subject to conditions. 2. The brief facts of the case are:- (a) The tempo bearing Registration No. KA 05-5721 was moving on Bengaluru to Hosuru Road at about 10.00 P.M. on 01.04.1997. Because of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the vehicle turtled into a drainage by the side of the road resulting into death of one Sri. Raju, the cleaner/attender of the vehicle in question. (b) The legal representatives of the deceased victim Raju made a claim for compensation which was resisted by the appellant-insurances company inter alia contending that the deceased was not in the employ of the owner of the vehicle. (c) To prove the claim, the father of the deceased, Sri. Ramareddy was examined as AW 1. In his evidence, six documents came to be marked as Exs. A1 to A6. From the side of the respondent, the administrative officer namely, Sri. Rama Reddy was examined as RW6 and two documents in Exs. R1 and R2 came to be marked. The impugned judgment and order made by the Commissioner is impugned in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contends that there is absolutely no material to establish the employer-employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle in question and the deceased Raju and therefore, the Commissioner grossly erred in recording a finding that the deceased was in the employ of the owner of the vehicle as a cleaner/attender. 4. Learned counsel further takes me through the Objection Statement filed by the Insurer, wherein, the contention as to employer-employee relationship is taken, albeit vaguely. However, there is absolutely no specific cross-examination as to the issue of employment. In support of the said contention, learned counsel submits that the proceedings were not before a regular court but before a quasi judicial authority like the Commissioner and therefore, the deposition of the parties have to be seen with leniency. He submits, if it is seen that way, it becomes apparent that the finding as to the employer-employee relationship is recorded without any evidence. 5. He submits, if it is seen that way, it becomes apparent that the finding as to the employer-employee relationship is recorded without any evidence. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the claimant and having perused the Lower Court Records, more particularly, Insurer's cross-examination of AW-1 Sri. Rama Reddy, I do not find any merit in the said contention, which essentially falls within the realm of facts. Law relating to scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is well settled. The scope of appeal under section 30 is ordinarily approximated to the scope of appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., 1908. The question as to relationship of employer-employee essentially being one of fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise, when it touches the issue of sufficiency of evidence to arrive at a finding. 6. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that AW-1, the father of the deceased has admitted that deceased Raju also went to the marriage hall along with the passengers in the very same vehicle and therefore this very admission improbabalizes the existence of employer-employee relation between victim Raju and the owner of the vehicle in question, does not appear to be sound. The evidentiary material on record discloses that the vehicle in question, the passengers who travelled therein and also the deceased were all from the same village. That being so, there is nothing abnormal that victim Raju too went to the marriage function with the other passengers, as it very often happens with the villagers, who habitually take vehicle staff for the marriage feast. 7. The cross-examination by the Insurer's side of the AW-1 as to the existence of employer-employee relation is far from being satisfactory. Nothing worth mentioning has been elicited to draw an inference as to non-existence of that relation. Even the pleadings in this respect are also scanty. 8. Except the ground of employer-employee relationship, no other ground is urged before this Court. 9. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed. The amount of compensation deposited in the Registry of this Court be transferred to the concerned jurisdictional Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner forthwith for doing disbursed to the claimants-awardees, immediately.