BRANCH MANAGER Vs. SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the insurer. According to Sri Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the following substantial questions of Jaw arise for consideration:

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Davangere in Case No. WCA. CR. 141/2000 dated 30. 3. 2002. In this appeal, Mr. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various interesting points and a multi-comer attack is also made against the claim of compensation. The appeal was beam at great length. Since various important points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merit of the present appeal and challenge to it, it is necessary to set out the relevant material facts. The respondents herein who were claimants before the Commissioner are the parents. brothers and sister of deceased Shivanna. The claim petition would disclose that on 13. 10. 2000 at about 8-30 a. m the deceased Shivanna who was working as Operator with respondent No. 8 in this appeal was found dead in a well. The said well is situate in the premises of the factory and the said incident accident arose out of and in the course of employment resulting in the death of said Shivanna. The age of the deceased was 22 years at the relevant point of time when he met a premature death. He was working as Operator in the premises of the 8th respondent. He had been to work on 11-10-2000 and bad informed the family members that he would be working date on 11th and 12th and would return only after completion of the work. It appears the body of said Shivanna was found in the well which was noticed by some of the workers on 13. 10. 2000 and immediately thereafter a complaint was lodged and a case was registered in UDR No. 96/2000. According to the claimants as the said Shivanna died during the course of the employment they laid the present claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. They inter alia stated that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and in view of his untimely death the claimants have become destitutes as they were wholly dependent on his income for their livelihood. Claimant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were minors and they were being looked after by the deceased brother.

(3.) IN pursuance of the notice issued, the insurer as well as the insured entered appearance and filed their objections to the claim petition. The statement of objections filed by the employer discloses that the deceased was indeed working for them as operator and admitted the allegation that his body was found on 13. 10. 2000 at about 8-30 a. m. in the well which was situate in the factory premises. They further admitted that the incident had occurred arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting in his death. They further denied that the deceased was the only sole bread earner of the family and inter alia contended that in the event the Commissioner were to hold that the deceased died during the course of the employment and out of employment since the factory and its workers were insured with the second respondent i. e. , the appellant, it was the bounden duty of the insurer to indemnity them. They further made a. statement that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid in accordance with the Companies Rules and Regulations and denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The insurer objected to the claim petition generally denying all the averments made in the claim petition including that in the absence of any succession certificate or survivor certificate the claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Shivanna. They further denied that the deceased Shivanna was employed with respondent-1 and was discharging his duties as Operator and that he died on 30. 10. 2000 at about 8-30 a. m. According to them the death did not occur while he was discharging his duties of his employer. They denied that he was getting a salary of Rs. 30001- per month. The insurer also denied that the issue of policy to respondent-l on the date of the alleged accident for covering the risk. They also reserved their right to file additional statement of objection if need arises. They further objected on the ground that there is no privity of contract subsisting between the parties inter se and the claim petition itself was not maintainable nor sustainable in Jaw. They generally denied all the averments made in the petition.