IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5725 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN:
LEGAL OFFICER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, III FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHANKAR K.C. @ SHANKAREGOWDA, S/O CHIKKA HEDEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O KILARA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY R/A IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TALUK/DISTRICT-571511.
2. PRADEEP KUMAR K.N. S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, #45, KILARA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.2.2013 PASSED IN WCA.NO./NFC/CR-16/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,30,825/- WITH INTEREST.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The insurer is in appeal under Section 30(1) of Workmen’s Compensation, 1923, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02-2-2013 in WCA/NFC/CR- 16/2012 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara.
2. Respondent No.1-claimant filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in an accident involving tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-09/T- 4035 and KA-11/T-9957, where the claimant was working as a loader/coolie. The claimant states that on 16-3-2012 as per the direction of his owner, he was proceeding to load the sugarcane, at that time the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the claimant fell down from the bonnet of the tractor and trailer and sustained injuries. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month and Batta of Rs.50/- per day. He was aged 43 years as on the date of accident.
3. In WCA/NFC/CR-16/2012, respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor and trailer and respondent No.2 is the insurer. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. But only respondent No.1 filed its statement of objections to the claim petition. The award of the Commissioner’s notes that on behalf of respondent No.2-insurer, vakalath was filed but no objections were filed. Based on the claim petition, the Commissioner proceeded to frame the following points for consideration:
1. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÀµÀ× ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1923gÀ ‘PÁ«ÄðPÀ’ JA§ ¥ÀzÀzÀ ªÁåSÁå£ÀzÀr §gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀå¢AzÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀgÁVzÁÝUÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ºÉÆA¢ SÁAiÀÄA ¤§ð®vÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÀªÀÄUÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVvÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÆ JµÀÄÖ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¢AzÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ ¤§ð®vÉ GAmÁV JµÀÄ UÀ½PÉ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
5. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ, ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄð£À §rØUÉ CºÀðgÀÄ? ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¨ÁzÀå¸ÀÜgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
6. F §UÉÎ K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ?
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10.
5. Based on the material placed on record, the Commissioner awarded total compensation of Rs.6,30,825/- assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.7,300/- per month and assessed the whole body disability at 85%. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel for the respondent-claimant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would submit that the Commissioner without providing a fair opportunity to contest the claim petition proceeded to pass an award. He further submits that in WCA/NFC/CR- 16/2012 the counsel on behalf of appellant-insurer filed vakalath and subsequently written statement was filed in the Office. But the Commissioner proceeded to pass an orders noting that no objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.2-insurer. Learned counsel further produces certified copy of the order sheet for perusal, which indicates that on 29-8-2012, Advocate, H.K.Ramamurthy filed vakalath and time was granted to file written statement. It is his further submission that subsequently the counsel had filed written statement along with the memorandum of facts, which was returned without taking on record. Hence, prays for an opportunity to contest the claim petition before the Commissioner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant would submit that even after providing sufficient opportunity, appellant-insurer failed to file written statement. Hence, the Commissioner further posted the petition for an enquiry and thereafter passed an award. Thus, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the appellant- insurer is entitled for an opportunity to contest the claim petition before the Commissioner as contended by it. Answer to the said point is in the affirmative and the appellant-insurer is entitled for an opportunity to contest the claim petition before the Commissioner for the following reasons.
10. The claim petition was filed under Section 22 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant. On issuance of notice, the counsel on behalf of respondent No.2-insurer filed vakalath on 29-8-2012, which is indicated in the certified copy of the order sheet produced by the appellant-insurer and subsequently, time was granted to file written statement. The order sheet notes that on 19-10-2012, respondent No.2-insurer failed to file written statement. The learned counsel for the appellant- insurer states that respondent No.2-insurer filed written statement subsequently along with the memorandum of facts, which was not taken on record and the same, was returned. Respondent No.2-insurer has not cross- examined the claimant as well as PW-2-Doctor, who was examined on behalf of the claimant. The Commissioner proceeded to pass an order noting that respondent No.2- insurer had not filed objections to the claim petition.
11. Looking to the nature of proceedings and the contentions urged, I am of the view that the appellant- insurer is to be provided with an opportunity to contest the claim petition before the Commissioner. As such, the judgment and award dated 02-2-2013 in WCA/NFC/CR- 16/2012 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara, is set aside.
12. The matter remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The appellant-insurer is at liberty to file written statement or additional written statement and to further cross-examine the claimant as well as PW-2-Doctor. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
13. The insurer shall pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the claimant’s Advocate appearing before this Court.
14. Since the claim petition is of the year 2012, the Commissioner shall dispose off the claim petition within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties on receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant- insurer.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ