Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G.NARENDAR, BELLUNKE A.S., JJ.
Smt. Sunita W/O Rachayya Hiremath And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Managing Director, Eco Cane Sugar Energy Ltd. And Ors. – Respondents
M.F.A.NO.102389 & 100903 of 2017 (MV)
Decided On : 19-03-2019
For the Appellant :Sri. Ashok A. Naik & D. M. Badiger, Advocates
For the Respondent:Sri.M M Patil, Advocate for Sri. Ravindra R. Mane, Advocate for Sri. Sunil S. Desai & M. M. Khanagavi, Advocate
Headnote:
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - sub-section (1)(b) of Section 4 - Claim against employer - Employees Compensation - Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation - What order –Held, Control Order in favour of Sugar Factory area so reserved many a time consists of several villages and farmers who grow cane within those villages are required to supply same to factory in favour of whom area is reserved- One of duties of Field Assistant is to ensure time for supply of cane to factory during crushing season crushing season commences in month of August-September and continue accident has occurred thereby it can be safely inferred that accident has occurred during crushing season and in absence of any evidence to controvert assertion by wife of deceased employee court do not find any ground which controverts finding of fact rendered Personal Accident cover and only registered owner in person is entitled to compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving license- Hence compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle owned by a company a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where owner-driver does not hold an effective driving license- In all such cases where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted additional premium for compulsory cover for owner driver should not be charged and compulsory cover provision in policy should also be deleted Court below is contrary to terms - He would content that to cover liability of insured and to indemnify insured insurer ought to have paid a separate premium and that only if such a premium is paid insurer is liable indemnify insured in respect of claims by employees of insured who are neither driver nor cleaner of two wheeler- In instant case though such contention with regard to legal liability raised no issues have been framed – Order accordingly
ORDER :
G.NARENDAR, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the claimants in MFA No.102389/2017.
2. The short point on which the appeal is canvassed is that the Commissioner under Employees’ Compensation Act, has failed to take cognizance of the amendment of the Minimum Wages Act and that the income of the deceased ought to be calculated in terms of the amended provisions of sub-section (1)(b) of Section 4 and that the wages ought to have been calculated at the rate as stipulated under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The issue should not detain us for long.
3. We have perused the judgment and award passed by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, Belagavi. The Court below has placed reliance on Ex.P10 -salary slip and thereafter proceeded to assess the compensation. The question of application of the Minimum Wages Act would not arise where the person is paid a fixed salary and if his salary so paid is lesser than the minimum wages, then it was for the appellants or the workmen to have agitated the same before the appropriate forum. Having failed, no illegality or error can be attached to the Court below for placing reliance on Ex.P10 -the salary slip.
4. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises. Hence MFA No.102389/2017 is dismissed without being admitted.
5. MFA No.100903/2017 is by the insurer.
6. The learned counsel for the insurer would vehemently contend that the Court below and the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act erred in awarding compensation in the absence of there being either a statutory or contractual liability, cast on the appellant-insurer. It is contended that the motorcycle was handed over to the deceased by its owner, who is none other than his employer arrayed as third respondent before the Court below. Hence he would submit that the deceased having stepped into the shoes of the owner is not a third party and is not entitled to any compensation.
7. The learned counsel would also alternatively argue that the deceased was not appointed as a driver of the motorcycle or under any other capacity in connection with the motorcycle. That being the case and no separate premium having been collected, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim against the employer, i.e., the insured. He would also further contend that the accident has not occurred in the course of employment.
8. The contention requires to be rejected as the Court below has rejected the said contention and has rendered a finding of facts after appreciating the evidence and material on record. The appellant is unable to demonstrate any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence or any illegality in the reasoning set out by the trial Court to hold otherwise. The only contention which requires to be addressed is as to whether the deceased was employed in connection with the motorcycle.
9. The undisputed fact of the case is that, the deceased was employed as a Field Assistant by the 3rd respondent company. The 3rd respondent company is the registered owner of the motorcycle. The scope of a Field Assistant involves visiting the various fields where the sugar cane is being grown and to inspect the same and ensure that the crop grown is ready for harvest and also to issue permission for harvesting and transportation of the harvested cane to the factory premises by the farmers. This involves traveling to various villages where the cane is grown. It is not denied that the motorcycle is purchased by the company and utilized for the purpose of facilitating the company’s work of inspecting the sugarcane grown and the person who executes this job and hence the argument that the deceased was not employed in connection with motorcycle requires to be rejected. It must be held that the purchase of the motorcycle and the employment of the deceased was in connection with the post of the Field Assistant and consequently in connection with motorcycle.
10. The learned counsel for t
