Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the insurer, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., against the judgment and award dated 29.4.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT and Commissioner for Employees' Compensation at Raibag in ECA No.1/2014. The claimants, Smt. Parawwa (widow) and Kum. Sangappa (son), filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation for the death of Balappa Bhimappa Teli @ Ganiger, who died while working as a coolie on a borewell rig vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-MH/6369 owned by respondent No.3, N. Suresh Babu. The deceased was employed as a coolie and on 1.9.2012 at about 5 p.m., while working on the borewell rig, he sustained fatal injuries. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident, holding the insurer liable. The insurer appealed under Section 30(1) of the Act, contending that there was no employer-employee relationship and that the death did not arise out of employment. The High Court examined the evidence, including the complaint (Ex.P1) and the owner's admission, and found that the deceased was indeed employed as a coolie. The court held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, as the deceased was working on the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's award and directing the insurer to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Burden of Proof - The claimants, being dependents of the deceased, must establish that the deceased was a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court held that the evidence on record, including the complaint and the owner's admission, sufficiently proved that the deceased was employed as a coolie on the borewell rig vehicle, and the absence of a written contract does not negate the relationship. (Paras 3-5) B) Workmen's Compensation - Arising Out of and in Course of Employment - Section 3 - The death of the deceased while working on the borewell rig vehicle on 1.9.2012 at 5 p.m. was held to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. The court found that the accident occurred during the performance of his duties as a coolie, and the insurer's contention that the death was due to a pre-existing condition was not supported by evidence. (Paras 6-8) C) Workmen's Compensation - Liability of Insurer - Section 30 - The insurer's appeal challenging the award of compensation was dismissed as the court found no perversity or illegality in the Commissioner's findings. The insurer was held liable to indemnify the owner and pay the awarded amount to the claimants. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of a coolie working on a borewell rig vehicle arose out of and in the course of employment, and whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and award of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- Section 30
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Burden of Proof
- Arising Out of and in Course of Employment
- Coolie
- Borewell Rig Vehicle
