IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT MFA NO.4750 OF 2010 (WC) BETWEEN 1. SHRI.SHEKHAR GOUDA, S/O REVANASIDDAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, 2. SHRI.SIDDESH, S/O SHEKHAR GOUDA, AGE: 22 YEARS, 3. SHRI.MAHESH, S/O SHEKHAR GOUDA, AGE: 21 YEARS, 4. SHRI.RAJU, S/O SHEKHAR GOUDA, AGE: 19 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF K.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.N.M.HANDRAL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRI.M.SHIVANAGAPPA, S/O TIRUKAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR, R/O HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DAVANAGERE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.D.GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1, SRI.LAXMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 08.10.2009 PASSED IN KAAADA/KANAPA/ CR-39/07 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimants is against the judgment and order made by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Davanagere dismissing No.KAAADA/KANAPA/CR-39/07.
2. The brief facts stated in the claim petition are that one Smt.Manjulamma was working as a hamal/coolie in the Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-17-T-2878; on 08.12.2005 at around 11.30 a.m., because of negligence of the driver of the said Tractor-Trailer, the said Smt.Manjulamma sustained fatal injuries after coming in contact with the paddy harvesting fan attached to the Tractor-Trailer and having sustained fatal injuries, breathed her last.
3. To prove the claim, the claimant No.1 one Mr.Shekharagowda, husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and 14 documents came to be marked as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. From the side of the respondents, one Mr.M.Shivanagappa, the owner of the said Tractor-Trailer. was examined as R.W.1. Another Mr.M.N.Mukundaraj, an Official of the United India Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2; in their evidence, four documents came to be marked as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5.
4. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation by the impugned judgment and order has negatived the claim, having appreciated the pleadings of parties and the evidence borne out by record.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is contrary to the evidentiary material on record, especially, the subsequent statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C; no reasonable person in the arm chair of the Commissioner would have absolved the respondents from liability, on the basis of the material on record; thus submitting he prays for allowing of the appeal by awarding compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as it then was, is as restricted as the one under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, inasmuch as appeal lies only on the substantially question of law; the question raised by the appellant herein is not even a mixed question of law and facts and that it is purely a question of facts to be answered on the basis of evidentiary material and therefore, the appeal itself is incompetent; the evidentiary material on record does not leave any scope for interfering with the findings recorded by the Commissioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the Insurer. I have perused the memorandum of appeal and also the original Lower Court Records.
8. The appeal is under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923; it is true that scope of the appeal is as restricted as it is under Section 100 of CPC as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Insurer. The appeal lies only on a question of law and that too when it is a substantial question of law. The finding of the fact recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is on the basis of evidentiary material on record. Whether such a finding is right or wrong ordinary cannot be the subject matter of appeal under Section 30, subject to all just exceptions. No case is made out for invoking the exceptions, either.
9. The material on record specifically shows that the Tractor Trailer in question was not involved in this case. There is no reason to deviate from the finding recorded by the Commissioner in his accumulated wisdom.
In the above circumstances, this appeal fails. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE NBM