The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of fact by the Commissioner, based on the evidence, were not perverse, and there was no substantial question of law for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and award.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 10293 of 2012(WC), whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment and award dated 19.06.2012 passed in WC-DVGWCA No.76 of 2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere(‘the Commissioner’).

3. By the judgment and award dated 19.06.2012, the Commissioner had awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,15,960/-(Rupees four lakh fifteen thousand nine hundred sixty) together with interest @ 12% per annum to the wife and mother of the deceased workman, said to be employed as a driver on the auto-rickshaw belonging to the respondent No. 2. The workman allegedly died while on duty due to cardiac arrest.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects of the present case are that the Commissioner, while dealing with the claim made by the present appellants, framed the following issues for consideration:-

“1. Whether the petitioners have proved that, the deceased died due to driving strain on 07.04.2010 while working as driver in the autorickshaw bearing No.KA-17-A--6365 owned by the first respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the dependants of the deceased?

3. Whether the petitioners have proved the monthly salary received by the deceased while working as driver in the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-17-A-6365 owned by the first respondent and the age of the deceased?

4. What compensation are the petitioners entitled for and from whom?

5. What order?”

5. The Commissioner returned the finding on issue No. 1, after examination of the material placed on record in the following manner:-

“…On examining the documents viz. Ex-P1 FIR, Ex-P2-Inquest mahazar, Ex-P3-Spot mahazar, Ex-P4-statement of the 1st respondent, Ex-P5-post mortem report, Ex-P8-Charge-sheet, Ex-P9-FSL report post mortem reports produced and got marked during examination of his sworn evidence, the second petitioner, it is considered that, the said documents are corroborative to the factors in the petition and sworn affidavit of the petitioners, it is confirmed that, the deceased died due to the driving strain on 07.04.2010 while working as driver in the auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-17-A-6365 owned by the first respondent and decide accordingly.”

6. In issue No. 2, the Commissioner held that the claimants were dependents of the deceased; and in issue No. 3, held that the deceased was 30 years of age and was receiving monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- and daily allowance of Rs.50/- from the employer. While quantifying compensation and deciding liability in issue No. 4, the Commissioner assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.4,15,960/- (Rupees four lakh fifteen thousand nine hundred sixty) with reference to the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand). The Commissioner also examined in detail the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-insurer and the affidavit filed on its behalf and ultimately recorded his conclusion on the liability of the insurer and the entitlement of the claimants in the following words:-

“…Auto rickshaw baring No. KA-17-A-6365 owned by the first respondent is insured with the second respondent and the said insurance policy is marked as Ex-R2-1 and the insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident and the driver of the vehicle is covered under the said insurance policy and on examining thoroughly and considering the factors addressed during arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties with regard to payment of compensation due to the first and second petitioner under law towards the death of the deceased, it is decided that, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,15,960-00 to the first and second petitioners under statute with regard to the death of the deceased.”

7. In the insurer’s appeal against the judgment and award aforesaid, t