Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 970 (KAR)

Chief Engineer, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Papayya S/o Balayya

2018-09-15

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2018
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur wherein the claim petition seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act came to be allowed and a compensation of Rs.2,92,786/- was awarded to the claimants together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31st day to the accident till final realization. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are hereinafter referred in accordance with the ranks held by them before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. The claim petition came to be preferred because of the unnatural death of Renuka D/o Papayya who was working under respondent No.2-A.P.Reddy Construction Company on 6.5.2005 at 7.30 a.m. The work project coming within the limits of Gugal village in Devadurga Taluka. On the said date, under the instructions and directions of respondent No.2 she was working under second respondent. To answer thirst she went to Krishna river to drink water, suffered skid to her leg that dragged her inside the waters, but she could not recover but succumbed to drowning in Krishna river. Case came to be registered in UDR No.4/2005 in Gabuur Police Station. It is claimed that Renuka was earning Rs.100/- per day by way of labour and it was being paid by the respondent No.2. The parents brother of of Renuka, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were depended on her earnings and it was a source of livelihood. It was claimed in the petition that Renuka was working as labour under respondent No.2 and was in employment to carry out the work under second respondent (appellant). It is claimed that Renuka as a labour out of and in the course of employment under respondent No.2 sustained serious injury in the form of drowning in the Krishna river and did not recover and succumbed to it. 4. Learned Commissioner on disposing the petition ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.2,92,786/-. The learned Commissioner was accommodated with oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Ex.P.1 to P.6 on behalf of the claimants and oral evidence of RW.1, GPA holder of respondent NO.2 and Ex.R.1 to R.6 as documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent No.2. On hearing the contentions of both the parties and perusing the records, the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation as stated above. 5. On hearing the contentions of both the parties and perusing the records, the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation as stated above. 5. Sri Sanjay M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the scheme of Workmen Compensation Act which is a beneficial legislation would be available for enabling the relief provided on workman sustains injuries out of and in the course of employment in case of death of a workman due to injuries as stated above his dependants. The learned counsel in this connection submits that the date, place and time of death of Renuka would indicate that she was never an employee on 6.5.2005 when suffered skid and fall into Krishna river when she had gone to wash her face or to drink water and was dragged into Krishna river and she could not recover, but succumbed to drowning. 6. The learned counsel for appellant Sri Sanjay M.Joshi would further submit that the statement of the claimant would reflect that Renuka was neither the employee of the appellant nor the incident was out of and in the course of employment. The statement of Papayya shows that she went to river at 7.30 a.m. on the fateful day and there was revelation in the statement either regarding employment or the status and injuries (drowning) because of and during employment. The learned counsel would further submit that the list of members in employment under the appellant which is marked as Ex.R1 to R6 does not cover the name of Renuka as employee. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants Sri Basavaraj R.Math would submit that the accident suffered by Renuka was claiming out of and in the course of employment under the appellant and her parents-dependents are entitled for compensation. He would further submit that the appeal is not maintainable by virtue of absence of question of law. However, it was traversed by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sanjay M.Joshi stating that points of law are mentioned in the appeal memo. Thus, the points that are clear are; death of Renuka because of drowning in the Krishna river is not disputed. Likewise, relationship between the claimants and Renuka not disputed. the nature of unnatural death is also not disputed. 8. The bone of contention between them are; she was never an employee under the appellant respondent No.2 before the Commissioner. Thus, the points that are clear are; death of Renuka because of drowning in the Krishna river is not disputed. Likewise, relationship between the claimants and Renuka not disputed. the nature of unnatural death is also not disputed. 8. The bone of contention between them are; she was never an employee under the appellant respondent No.2 before the Commissioner. The term out of employment refers as a reason which suggests where injury or grievous injuries leading to death happen or were sustained only because of the employment. In the sense, the place and presence where the victim was present would not be happened, had the victim was not an employee under a particular person. Thus, the cause of employment not necessarily confined to the hazardous operation in a factory or a process. Insofar as, in the course of employment suggests during the employment. In the sense, the period or the time factor when the accident occurred was during employment. Thus, the eligibility for compensation under Workmen’s Compensation is available to a claimant provided the accident was out of and in the course of employment. 9. Insofar as the instant case is concerned, the address of residence of Renuka as stated in the claim petition is; Renuka D/o Papayya R/o Devapalli Gopalpeth Mandalam, Tq. Nagar Kunrool, Dist. Mahaboobnagar (AP). 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the date, place and time of death of Renuka would indicate that she was never an employee on 06.05.2005, when she suffered a skid and fall into Krishna river and when she had gone to wash her face and to drink water as the case may be and was drown into Krishna river, she could not recover but succumbed to drowning. 11. Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel would further submit that the statements of the claimants would reflect that Renuka was neither the employee of the appellant nor the accident was out of and in the course of employment. The statements of claimants were that Renuka went to river at 7-30 a.m., on fateful day and there was no revelation in the statement either regarding employment or the space of the injures (drowning) because of and during the employment. Learned counsel would further submits that the list of members in employment under the appellant, which is marked as Ex.R-1, it does not cover the name of Renjuk as employee. 12. Learned counsel would further submits that the list of members in employment under the appellant, which is marked as Ex.R-1, it does not cover the name of Renjuk as employee. 12. Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents would submit that the accident suffered by Renuka was clearly out of and in the course of employment under the appellant and her parents-dependents were entitled for compensation. 13. Learned counsel would further submit that the appeal is not maintainable by virtue of absence of question of law. However, it was controversy by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that points of law, are mentioned in the appeal memo. Thus, the points are clear that death of Renuka, because of drowning in Krishna river is not disputed. Unnatural death is not disputed. The bone of contention between them are that she was never an employee under appellant who is respondent No.1 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 14. Phrase out of employment refers as a reason which suggests whether injury or grievous injury leading to death happened or sustained only because of the employment. The place where the victim was present would not have happened that victim was not an employee under a particular person. Thus, because of employment, not unnecessarily confined to the hazards operations in a factory or a process. So far as in the course of employment suggests during employment in the sense the period or time factor when the accident occurred was during employment. Thus, the eligibility for compensation under Workmen’s Compensation is available to a claimant provided the accident was out of and in the course of employment, which covers each occupational disease, theory of notional extension of employment and the related. Insofar as the instant case is concerned, the address of residence of Renuka as stated is daughter of Papayya R/o Mandalam Tq. Nagar Kunrool, Dist. Mahboobnagar. The accident in the form of drawing and death of Renuka occurred in Gugal village, within the limits of Devadurga Taluk where the Krishna river floats. Thus, the residence of Renuka from village Revpalli, Gopalpeth, Mandalam in Andhra Pradesh within the limits of Kurnool has no nexus to Gugal village within the limits of Devadurga Taluka. Thus, this is the first including circumstance, which profiles the fact that Renuka has a laborer come from her place all along to the projects. 15. Thus, the residence of Renuka from village Revpalli, Gopalpeth, Mandalam in Andhra Pradesh within the limits of Kurnool has no nexus to Gugal village within the limits of Devadurga Taluka. Thus, this is the first including circumstance, which profiles the fact that Renuka has a laborer come from her place all along to the projects. 15. Secondly, insofar as the unskilled labour are concerned, it is not uncommon as they are deprived of fixed salaries and accommodation, PF and gratuity or pension. 16. Thus, in majority of cases, workman or unskilled labour and in many employment there is no commencing hour or ending hour. 17. Insofar as exclusion of the name of the Renuka from the list of employment does not cause impact on the case. It is substantially common in respect of unskilled labour. 18. For the reasons morefully stated above definitely it was in the course of employment. In the circumstances, the compensation is granted to parents and brothers of Renuka. 19. The learned Commissioner has found entitlement of compensation has considered salary which in the existed circumstance is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable. 20. There are no grounds to hold infirmity, irregularity or unreasonable in the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. I find appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 21. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Raichur stands confirmed. As a result of which, claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation amount deposited. Records and amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Court.