JUDGMENT :

Challenging the Judgment passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Belagavi in E.C.A.No.560/2014, this appeal is filed by the Insurer.

2. The respondent No.1 herein is the wife of deceased Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his minor children and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are his parents. The respondent No.6 herein is the employer and the appellant is Insurer of respondent No.6. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein were the petitioners; respondent No.6 herein was respondent No.1 and the appellant herein was respondent No.2 in E.C.A. No.560/2014, respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their ranks before the Commissioner.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the petitioners filed petition under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘E.C. Act’) seeking for compensation on account of death of Sri. Nagappa Shankreppa Sutagatti while under employment with respondent No.1. It was stated that, Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and was engaged in construction of residential apartment by respondent No.1 at CTS No.751, Gajanan Road, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belagavi. At about 5.45 p.m. on 28.12.2013, Sri. Nagappa fell down into a ditch after loosing his balance while lifting cement bag. He was unconscious due to the fall. When taken to BIMS Hospital, he was declared brought dead. It was further stated that, the incident was registered as an unnatural death by the Udyambhag police station, Belagavi and a UD report No.12/2013 was filed. It was further stated that, as on the date of death Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti was hale and healthy and earning Rs.8,000/-per month and that the petitioners were dependent on his income.

4. On service of summons, the respondent No.1, filed objections admitting employment of the deceased Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti as a coolie at the site of construction of apartment. Respondent No.1 further admitted the accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. It was contended that, the deceased died due to not following safety measures and was not wearing helmet during work and therefore, died due to his own negligence.

5. Respondent No.2 – Insurer filed objections denying the petition averments in toto. It however admitted issuance of policy for covering the risk of respondent No.1, but strongly refuted liability in this case by denying the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and the deceased and further contended that the accident did not occur during the course of or out of employment. It was specifically contended that lack of MLC intimation and failure of a respondent No.1 to produce muster roll, wage registers, etc., to establish employment of deceased by respondent No.1 indicated collusion between the petitioner, respondent No.1 and the police. On the said grounds, it sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. Based on pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration:

“1. Whether petitioners prove the existence of jural relationship of employee and employer between deceased Nagappa s/o Shankareppa sutagatti & the Respondent no.1 at the relevant point of time?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident had occurred during the course and out of the employment of the deceased Nagappa Shankareppa Sutagatti with the Respondent No.1 and he died in the said accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?

4. What order?”

7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the respondents, an official of respondent No.2 – Insurer was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits R.1 and R.2 were marked.

8. On consideration of the above, the Commissioner answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative and by assessing compensation at Rs.6,13,760/-