In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF JULY 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT MFA NO.22982/2013 (WC) C/W. MFA.NOS.22981/2013, 22983/2013 IN MFA NO 22982 OF 2013 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GAULBARGA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKMATH, ADV.) AND 1 . BASAVARAJA S/O HANUMAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTAGI,DIST: KOPPAL. 2 . YAMANUR S/O HANUMAGOUDA GOUDAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTAGI,DIST: KOPPAL. 3 . NOORJAN W/O MURTUZA SAB 2 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-25/A-0755, R/O: HANUMASAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTAGI,DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M M HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2 R3 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 PASSED IN WC.NO.62/2007 BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL. IN MFA NO 22981 OF 2013 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GAULBARGA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKMATH, ADV.) AND 1 . BHIMAWWA W/O HIREHANUMAPPA HOOLAGERI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2 . NOORJAN W/O LATE MURTUZA SAB LOLAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE 3 LORRY BEARING NO.KA-25/A-0755, R/O: HANUMASAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, KUMARI BALBINDAR KOUR D/O NIRMAL SINGH AGE: 2 YEARS. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M M HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2 R3 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 PASSED IN WC.NO.61/2007 BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL. IN MFA NO 22983 OF 2013 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GAULBARGA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKMATH, ADV.) AND 1 . KALAKAVVA W/O HANAMANTH @ HANAMAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTHAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2 . KAVITHA D/O HANAMANTH @ HANAMAPPA PUJAR AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, 4 TQ: KUSTHAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 3 . SAVITHA D/O HANAMANTH @ HANAMAPPA PUJAR AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTHAGI, DIST: KOPPAL MINOR REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESP.NO.1 4 . MAHANTESH S/O HANAMANTH @ HANAMAPPA PUJAR AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTHAGI, DIST: KOPPAL MINOR REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESP.NO.1 5 . LAKSHMAWWA W/O NINGAPPA PUJAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: HANUMAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTHAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 6 . NOORJAN W/O MURTUZA SAB AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-25/A-0755, R/O: HANUMASAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M M HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1- R5 R6 SERVED; R3 AND 4 ARE MINORS R/BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 PASSED IN WC.NO.63/2007 BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 5 JUDGMENT These appeals are at the instance of the insurer calling in question the awards dated 31/05/2013 passed in WC Nos. 61, 62 and 63 of 2007 by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal (for short, ‘Commissioner’). 2. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that respondent No.1/Insured has admitted the employer and employee relationship in the written statement. However, she had not stepped into the witness box and therefore, the case of the appellant/insurance company is preJudiced inasmuch as the appellant could not cross examine her regarding her claim that three deceased were employed by her as Hamalies. He further points out that appellant had in fact filed interlocutory application before the learned Commissioner seeking opportunity to summon and cross examine respondent No.1/Smt.NoorJan W/o.Murtuza Sab. He submits that on an incorrect appreciation of order 6 dated 28.09.2012 passed in MFA.No.9748/2007 and connected matters, the applications were summarily reJected by the learned Commissioner. 3. I have also heard Sri.M.M.Hiremath, learned counsel for the claimants. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in order dated 29.08.2012 in MFA.No.9748/2007 and connected matters had observed as follows: 9. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, all these appeals are allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by Commissioner in Case Nos.61/2007, 62/2007, 63/2007 dated 01.06.2007 is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the 7 claimants, insurer and the owner and to dispose of the matter expeditiously. However, the claimants, the owner and the insurance company are permitted to file applications for production of additional documents within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event, if such applications are filed, the Commissioner is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. 5. It is obvious from the above order that the learned Commissioner was directed to reconsider the entire claim petitions after giving an opportunity to the claimants, insurance company and the insured and thereafter dispose of the matter expeditiously. However, the learned Commissioner has only looked into the second part of paragraph No.9 and has refused to exercise his Jurisdiction to summon respondent No.1 on an improper understanding of the order issued by this Court. In that 8 view of the matter, by order dated 22.05.2013 he had reJected the interlocutory application. The order dated 22.05.2013 is illegal as the learned Commissioner has refused to exercise his Jurisdiction which was vested in him. After reJecting the application, he proceeded to pass the impugned award on 31.05.2013. Therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside with a direction to the learned Commissioner to reconsider the claim petitions after affording opportunity to both sides to cross examine respondent No.1. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The Appeals are allowed. ii) The award dated 31/05/2013 passed in WC Nos. 61, 62 and 63 of 2007 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the learned Jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge for affording opportunity to both sides to cross examine respondent No.1. Since this matter is pending for nearly 14 years, the learned Court below is directed to expedite the matter and at 9 any rate, conclude the proceedings on or before 30/10/2021. iii) The learned Jurisdictional Court shall secure records from the learned Commissioner for the purpose of trial. Sd/- JUDGE VB/- .