ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. THAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dtd. 17/9/2018 passed in ECA No.64/2014 by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, whereby a sum of Rs.4,69,640.00 has been awarded as compensation together with interest at 12% p.a. fastening liability on the Insurance Company on account of the death of Madegowda.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that, deceased Madegowda was the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and was working under respondent No.1 in Sugar Cane Crushing Factory engaged in preparation of Jaggary at Kopparayanakoppal, Srirangapatna, Mandya District. On 20/7/2014 at about 4.50 PM when the deceased was putting sugar cane bagasse into oven and two oxen were taking rounds near sugar cane furnace. At that time the wooden stick which was kept on the oxen hit the deceased Madegowda and he fell down in the sugar cane furnace and sustained burn injuries. He was taken to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and admitted as inpatient and died on 23/7/2014. After conducting the post-mortem, the dead body was taken to their village and funeral and obsequies ceremonies were conducted. He was the only earning member of the family and the petitioners were depending on the deceased. The police have registered the case in UDR No.40/2014 dtd. 24/7/2014. Respondent no.1 being the employer has not helped the petitioners in any way. At the time of incident, the deceased was 60 years old and he was getting coolie of Rs.300.00per day and the respondent No.2 being the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) On issuance of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their objections. The respondent No.1 has admitted that he is the owner of the sugar cane crushing machine/jaggary unit and contended that the deceased was getting Rs.200.00 per day as coolie and the respondent no.2 is the insurance company and the crushing machine was insured with respondent no.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.