IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9160/2009 (WC) BETWEEN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CBO-11, NO.21, MISSION ROAD, NEAR SUBBAIAH CIRCLE, BANGALORE-27 BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.S.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR SRI. P B RAJU, ADV.) AND 1. SHRI. G A RAJKUMAR @ RAJU, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT. HEGGADE DEVANAPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SHRI BASAVARAJ. H, MAJOR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE M/S ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ROADWAYS HOUSE, NO.40, CKC GARDEN, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-27. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G K SREEVIDYA, ADV. FOR SRI. T.N.VISWANATHA, ADV. FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DT:26/2/14.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2009 PASSED IN WCA/NFC/CR-114/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,49,745/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Karmika Bhavana, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-29, on 15.09.2009 in WCA/NFC-CR-114/2007 filed by the claimant, which came to be allowed in part, wherein the claimant was awarded an amount of Rs.1,49,745/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from 20.12.2007 to the date of realization.
2. It is claimed that on 20.11.2007 at about 12 Noon on a goods vehicle Tata 407 bearing Registration No.KA-01- 4890, the claimant was discharging his duties as driver, loader and unloader. When he was verifying the load he abruptly fell down from the vehicle. Because of the fall, he sustained injuries to his leg, forearm, waist, head and other parts. It is stated that he was an employee under the first respondent in connection with the said vehicle.
3. Thus claimant seeks compensation by claiming that being an employee under first respondent and out of and in the course of employment on 20.11.2007, he sustained injuries, because of which he fell disabled.
4. Upon claim petition presented before the Workmen’s Compensation, Commissioner, the Commissioner after examining the matter on the claim of the petitioner and the objection by the respondent, granted compensation of Rs.1,49,745/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from 20.12.2007 to the date of realization directing the insurance company to deposit the same. It is against the said order, the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has presented this appeal.
5. The learned counsel Mr. P.B. Raju for appellant submits that there was no yardstick available to the claimant as discussed in the judgment. No documents are presented to establish that the petitioner was an employee under respondent No.1 therein. The learned Commissioner erred in selecting multiplier and then considering 30% disability over the body and granting compensation as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant Smt. G.K. Sreevidya would submit that the relationship between the claimant and the respondent No.1 fulfilled all the requirements of employment and further there is no relevant reasoning is available to consider the absence of relationship. The claim made by the petitioner before the Commissioner is that he was a loader and unloader in the vehicle of the respondent Basavaraj.H who is the owner. The vehicle was insured with the respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The employment and relationship of employer and employee particularly in rural sector are certain employment like Driver, Cleaner, Loader, Unloader and many in the society are continuing in substantial number but without records establishing the relationship. The fact of the matter is even without records the relationship that exists and advantages and rights vested on a claimant cannot be trimmed on the ground of non-availability of suitable document.
7. Prima-facie when there are evidence and materials to conclude on the relationship, there is no impediment for considering the case on other aspects. The learned Commissioner has considered the equations for compensation as under:-
8. It is stated that claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month including bata. The monthly salary of the claimant is confined at Rs.4,000/-. As per Section 4(1)(b) of the Wokmen’s Compensation Act, 60% of the monthly salary to be taken to award the compensation which comes to Rs.2,400/-. Further, the factor applicable to the said claim is 207.98. PW-2 Dr. P. Niranjan Murthy and PW-3 Dr. Kiran in their evidence stated that the claimant has suffered disability at 40% to the spine and 20% to the whole body. The Commissioner, considering the evidence of the doctors, has assessed the disability at 30% to the whole body. Hence, the Commissioner after examining the materials on record, awarded compensation as under:
2400x207.98x30/100 = Rs.1,49,745/-.
9. Thus the amount granted as compensation is Rs.1,49,745/-. Though the counsel for appellant has taken up the contention that there was no relationship of employer and employee and the disability as claimed in the petition, I find that no independent documents are forthcoming to establish the relationship or the absence of relationship of employer and employee. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, appeal is rejected.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE