NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED Vs. NASEEMBANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-22 7485 challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division-II, Belgaum, in WCA SR No. 147 of 2003 dated 18-01-2005 directing to pay the compensation of Rs.1,74,206/- together with interest at 12% from 17/03/2003, hence this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the R-1 to 3/claimants, is that the late Gousab alias Gousmoddin Patel was working as a cleaner under R-5 Pundalik Basavanth Khangaonkar, as cleaner in truck bearing No. KA.22 7485, be was getting salary of Rs.2,000/- with batta of Rs.50 per day, on the fateful day i.e., 17-02-2003, while he was on duty, when the said vehicle was proceeding from Khanapura to Belgaum, when it was so proceeding near forest check-post, the driver of the said lorry drew it in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly applied the break, consequently he fell down and sustained injuries, immediately he was shifted to district hospital Belgaum, but succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment, therefore initially a UD No.8/ 2003 of Khanapur Police came to be registered, body was subjected to Post-Mortem and dead body was handed over to the respondents, R-l to 3 who performed final rituals, thereafter filed the claim petition against appellant, R-5 and R 4 to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ -. THE appellant as well as R-4 and 5 appeared and contested the claim petition before the commissioner, after considering the evidence placed on record by both parties award came to be passed which is under challenge.

(3.) ON the.other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the death occurred during the course of employment, injuries may not be the root cause for death during the course for employment while the vehicle was in motion, if the employee dies during the employment and out of employment the owner is liable to pay the compensation either to the injured/claimant or to the LRs of the deceased. It is further argued that the death may be suicide on account of consumption of poison by the deceased or the poison might have been administered by 3rd party or on account of drinking of contaminated water or taking poisonous food, for which the employer is liable to pay the compensation. It is further argued that since the deceased was working under R-5 in a lorry, died during the course of employment and out of employment, R-5 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants/ R-1 to 3 and as the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant the Commissioner for workmen's compensation rightly fastened the liability on the appellant, hence the appeal be dismissed with cost.