N.L. PUNYAMURTHY Vs. MEENAKASHMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals in M.F.A.Nos.5322/2011 and 3254/2011 are filed by the first and second respondent, who are the insured and the Insurance Company respectively, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Sub-Division-2, at Chickmagalur ('the Workmen's Commissioner' for short) dtd. 28/10/2010 vide No.WCA/FC/40/2007, questioning the apportionment and the liability. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Workmen's Commissioner to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant is the wife of the deceased Swamy Gowda, who was working for the first respondent as an Agricultural Labour/Coolie. The policy was taken by the insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The claim of the claimant before the Workmen's Commissioner is that on 12/7/2006, her husband, while proceeding to the work of respondent No.1 in Coffee Plantation, fell down in the wet land which belongs to the insured and died on account of the said incident. It is also her claim that he was earning Rs.150.00 per day and he was working with respondent No.1 from the last 15 years and on account of death of her husband, she has lost an earning member of her family. Hence, she is entitled for the compensation.

(3.) The insured appeared and filed the objections statement contending that the incident was taken place in the early morning and not during the course of the employment or arising out of the employment. He was paying wages of Rs.70.00 per day to the deceased and not Rs.150.00 as claimed by the claimant. It is contended that the policy was taken from respondent No.2 and the said policy was in existence at the time of the accident. Hence, in case of any liability, the same is payable by respondent No.2.