IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA.No.1278/2013 (WC) BETWEEN THE GENERAL MANAGER M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD # 68, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE-68. .. APPELLANT (By Sri B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND 1. NAVEEN NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O NANJUNDARADHYA, R/O NO.206/3, BALAJI ROAD, TYAGARAJA NAGARA, BANGALORE-28 2. Y. HANUMAREDDY AGE: MAJOR, KITAGANOORU VILLAGE, K.R PURAM POST, BANGALORE-36. .. RESPONDENTS (By Smt.SUNITHA B H FOR Sri SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATES, R2 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:28.12.2011 PASSED IN WCA/NFC/CR-48/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,11,152/- WITH INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 28.12.2011 made in WCA/NFC/CR- 48/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-3, Bangalore, (for short `Commissioner for Workmen Compensation’) fastening the liability on them to compensate the claimant.
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed a claim petition contending that he was working as a driver in a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-53-738 belonged to the 2nd respondent herein. On 5.8.2006, as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, while he was proceeding towards Bannerughatta from Pillaguppa, the said vehicle met with an accident. In the accident, he sustained fracture of clavicle bone of right hand and fracture of right talus. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. Hence, the owner as well as the insurer are liable to compensate the claimant and sought for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-
3. The Insurance Company defended the case by filing written statement.
4. After trial, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation held that the claimant has sustained injuries during the course and out of employment. Hence, he is entitled for compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation taking into consideration the minimum wages being paid to the driver had taken the income of Rs.4,000/- per month, taking 60% thereof, since the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, applying the relevant factor 219.95 awarded a sum of Rs.2,11,152/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of passing the order. Since the policy was in force as on the date of accident, liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. had filed MFA No.6394/2012. The said appeal was allowed and the rate of interest was enhanced from 7.5% to 12% p.a. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has filed this appeal.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri B Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.Sunitha B H for Sri Suresh M Latur, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent, perused oral and documentary evidence and the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.
6. The injuries sustained by the claimant during the course and out of employment is not in dispute. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that there is relationship of master and servant between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant. However, the records produced by the parties clearly disclose that as on the date of accident, the 1st respondent was working as a driver of the lorry belonged to the 2nd respondent herein. Hence, it is not open to the Insurance Company to contend that the claimant has not sustained injuries during the course and out of employment when the vehicle itself met with an accident. Though the Insurance Company has taken a contention with regard to the relationship of master and servant, no document was produced to substantiate the same. The finding of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is based on the evidence of parties. I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the said finding.
7. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the accident had occurred in the year 2007. The income of Rs.4,000/- per month has been taken. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was a driver in the offending lorry. The income of Rs.4,000/- per month taken by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is in accordance with law. Therefore, I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in awarding the compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. There is no substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit made before this Court is ordered to be transferred to the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru for disbursement.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As.1 and 3 of 2013 are also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.