IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2681 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
D S SHANKARAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/OF HIREHALLI, NAYAKANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE TQ., CHITRADURGA DIST.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. UMAPATHI S/O M.PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, TERUBEEDI, NAYAKANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHITRADURGA BRANCH, CHITRADURGA ... RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2009 PASSED IN KA AA CHI:KANAPA:N.F/CR 369/2005 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Appellant made claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Chitradurga in WC number 369 of 2005 alleging that he has suffered accidental injury on 30th August 2003. It is his further case that the injury he suffered is during and in the course of employment and hence he is entitled for compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. The appellant has suffered injuries and was Hospitalised for about 15 days. It is further stated in the claim petition that after the accident the appellant cannot walk, he cannot lift weight, etc. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner framed the issues for consideration. Issue No.1 is as to whether the claimant has proved the relationship of employer and employee and the same has been answered in the affirmative. Further, the claim petition has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Wound certificate exhibit P6 discloses that the injured has suffered grievous injuries and in the cross examination also he has deposed that the accident was on 31st August 2003 and he was inpatient for about 15 days in the hospital. When these are all the evidence that are available before the Commissioner in addition to the material evidence viz. exhibit P6-wound certificate, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, committed an error in not entertaining the claim.
2. Respondent is served, unrepresented.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the reasons assigned in the Judgment. The wound certificate exhibit P6 discloses that the injuries suffered injuries which are grievous in nature. Opinion has been expressed that there injured suffered grievous injury and his patella has been exposed. The injured was in hospital from 31st August 2003 and he was discharged on 14th September 2003. Evidence is also available to the extent that the injured has suffered grievous injury during and in the course of employment. When these materials are available before the Workmen‘s Compensation Commissioner, the Commissioner had committed an error in rejecting the claim petition only on the ground that the injured has deposed in his chief examination that he has suffered simple injuries whereas exhibit P6 reveals that he has suffered grievous injuries. Looking at exhibit P6 and also the cross examination of the complainant wherein the employee has deposed that he suffered injuries while working for the respondent in the borewell machine and the injury is such that his patella has been exposed and he was an impatient for considerable length of time. In addition to that issue number as regards employer and employee relationship has been answered in favour of the petitioner. The substantial question of law is that whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner committed an error in dismissing the petition despite the evidence of PW1 workmen and to the nature of injury as per exhibit P6 wound certificate. I hold that when the employer and employee relationship has been established and fact that the accidental injury was during and in the course of employment was also available before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, dismissing the claim petition only on the basis of the evidence of an employee without reference to exhibit P6 wound certificate is an error committed by the Commissioner. Under the circumstance, I hold that it is just and proper to remand this matter to the Workmen‘s Compensation Commissioner. Accordingly the appeal case is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Workmen/s Compensation Commissioner. As the accident of the year 2003, it is expected that the Commissioner to dispose of the matter at the earliest and in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
lnn Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE