Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-1, Bangalore, in WCA:NFC:CR:16/2006, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,761/- with interest at 12% per annum. The insurer contended that there was no employer-employee relationship because the claimant was the son of the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was under family ownership. The insurer relied on the Supreme Court decision in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Another, 2007 ACJ 1025, where the Apex Court observed that the owner joined hands with the claimant to claim against the insurance company and dismissed the claim. The claimant's counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Hanumant and Another, 2006 ACJ 251, which held that the jural relationship of employer and employee was established. The court, after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal, holding that the relationship of employer and employee was established and the insurer was liable to pay the compensation awarded.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Family Ownership - Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The insurer challenged the award on the ground that the claimant was the son of the owner and the vehicle was under family ownership, thus no employer-employee relationship existed. The court held that the jural relationship of employer and employee was established and dismissed the appeal, relying on the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Hanumant and Another, 2006 ACJ 251. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant, being the son of the owner of the vehicle, can be considered an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 09.07.2009 passed in WCA:NFC:CR:16/2006 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-1, Bangalore, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,761/- with interest at 12% p.a. is upheld.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30(1)
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Family Ownership
- Jural Relationship
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (07) 27
Sri R Rajagopalan (for appellant), Sri K.S. Shyam Prasad (for respondent-1)
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
Shri Ramesh and Shri Tirumalaiah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against an order awarding compensation.
Remedy Sought
The appellant insurer sought to set aside the award of compensation on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship.
Filing Reason
The insurer challenged the award on the ground that the claimant was the son of the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was under family ownership, thus no employer-employee relationship existed.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-1, Bangalore, awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,761/- with interest at 12% p.a. in WCA:NFC:CR:16/2006 dated 09.07.2009.
Issues
Whether the claimant, being the son of the owner of the vehicle, can be considered an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation in such circumstances?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (Insurer): The claimant is the son of the owner and the vehicle is under family ownership, so there is no employer-employee relationship. Relied on Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Another, 2007 ACJ 1025.
Respondent (Claimant): The jural relationship of employer and employee is established. Relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Hanumant and Another, 2006 ACJ 251.
Ratio Decidendi
The jural relationship of employer and employee is established even if the claimant is the son of the owner of the vehicle, and the insurer is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is by the Insurer challenging the relationship of employer and employee on the ground that the claimant is none other than the son of the owner of the vehicle in question and that it is a vehicle owned under the family ownership.
Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, inter alia relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. HANUMANT AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 ACJ 251 wherein it was held that the jural relationship of employer and employee was established.
Procedural History
The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-1, Bangalore, passed an order dated 09.07.2009 in WCA:NFC:CR:16/2006 awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,761/- with interest at 12% p.a. The insurer filed this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 30(1)
