Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, awarding compensation of Rs.3,29,925/- to the dependents of the deceased Mahesh. The deceased died in an accident on 31.05.2006 while allegedly working as a Hamal under respondent No.3, K. Jayappa, on his tractor trailer. The claimants, parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act. The Commissioner allowed the claim, holding that the deceased was a workman under respondent No.3. The Insurance Company appealed, contending that there was no employer-employee relationship. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the driver of the tractor, examined as CW2, stated that the deceased was not working under respondent No.3 but was a co-worker. The court found that the Commissioner had misappreciated the evidence and that the claimants failed to prove the relationship. The court held that the appeal involved a substantial question of law and allowed it, setting aside the award and dismissing the claim petition.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Burden of Proof - Section 30(1) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The appeal challenged the award of compensation on the ground that there was no evidence to establish that the deceased was working as a Hamal under respondent No.3 at the time of accident - The High Court held that the Commissioner erred in relying on the evidence of the claimants and the driver, as the driver's testimony did not support the claim of employment under respondent No.3 - Held that the burden to prove employer-employee relationship was on the claimants, which they failed to discharge (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in awarding compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the absence of proof of employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.3?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, in WCA/CR.No.63/2007 is set aside. The claim petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30(1)
- Section 22
- employer-employee relationship
- burden of proof
- substantial question of law
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (07) 58
Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy (for appellant), Sri Vishwajith S. Shetty (for R1), Sri C. Shivakumar (for R3), Sri K.G. Shantharaja (for R2)
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Chamarajpet, Davangere, Rep. by Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Subharam Complex, 144, M.G. Road, Bangalore-01
1. K. Hanumanthappa, 2. Smt. Puttamma, 3. K. Jayappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against award of compensation by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation
Remedy Sought
Insurance Company sought setting aside of the award of compensation on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between deceased and respondent No.3
Filing Reason
Insurance Company challenged the award of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, dated 16.11.2007 in WCA/CR.No.63/2007
Previous Decisions
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,925/- with interest @ 12% p.a. to the dependents of the deceased
Issues
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in awarding compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the absence of proof of employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.3?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (Insurance Company) argued that there was no evidence to establish that the deceased was working as a Hamal under respondent No.3 at the time of accident, and the Commissioner erred in relying on the evidence of the claimants and the driver.
Respondents (claimants and owner) argued that the deceased was employed by respondent No.3 and the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden to prove employer-employee relationship is on the claimants. In the absence of credible evidence establishing that the deceased was a workman under respondent No.3, the Commissioner's finding of employment is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The appeal involves a substantial question of law under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere, thereby awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.3,29,925/- to the dependents of the deceased.
The driver of the tractor trailer examined as CW2 has stated that the deceased was not working under respondent No.3 and that he was a co-worker. Therefore, the evidence on record does not establish the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.3.
Procedural History
The claimants (respondents 1 and 2) filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, which was allowed on 16.11.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.3,29,925/- with interest. The Insurance Company appealed under Section 30(1) of the Act to the High Court of Karnataka, which allowed the appeal on 29.07.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 30(1), Section 22
