KANTHAMMA Vs. C J ASHOKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants are wife, daughters and mother of deceased B.P.Shivakumar, have filed the present appeal before this Court against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for short) made in E.C.A.No.45/2014 dated 07-11-2015 which has been dismissed. The claimants are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the death of B.P.Shivakumar during the course of his employment under respondent No.1.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants that they are the wife, daughters and mother of deceased B.P.Shivakumar, who was working as driver under respondent No.1 from two years. As per the directions of respondent No.1, on 23-11-2011, the deceased B.P.Shivakumar along with pilgrims went to Shabarimalai and other places. He returned on 02-12-2011 at about 3.00 p.m., and parked the Maxi cab near tempo stand, Park road at Hassan. Due to long hours of journey, the deceased B.P.Shivakumar suffered chest pain, then the cleaner Ranganatha came to the place where deceased B.P.Shivakumar had fell down. Thereafter, cleaner Ranganatha took him to Mangala Hospital, Hassan and after the checkup, doctors informed that B.P.Shivakumar was brought dead. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was earning monthly wages of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.250/- batta per day from respondent No.1 as a driver. Therefore, sought for compensation as prayed.

(3.) The first respondent has appeared before Tribunal, but not filed any statement of objections. The second respondent appeared before the Court through its counsel and filed the statement of objections. The second respondent in its statement has denied the averments made in the claim petition and denied the date, time and place of incident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is further denied that the deceased B.P.Shivakumar died due to chest pain and he was not discharging his duties under respondent No.1 as an employee. It is also denied the jural relationship between the first respondent and deceased and contended that the petitioners, first respondent and the jurisdictional police have concocted a false story that the deceased B.P.Shivakumar was discharging his duty under respondent No.1. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal.