Insufficient evidence of employment relationship justifies reversal of compensation claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act, prioritizing documentary evidence over oral assertions.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

1. With consent of counsel for both parties, matter is heard and taken up for final disposal.

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 05.04.2024 and 15.04.2024 respectively passed by IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Kalaburagi (in short ‘Commissioner’) in ECA no.75/2014, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri Sharanabasappa M Patil, counsel submitted, appeal was by insurer challenging finding of Commissioner on relationship between deceased and respondent no.5 as employee and employer and occurrence of accident during course of employment and out of employment. It was submitted, as per claimants, Mohammed Ismail, was employed as labour on monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- by respondent no.5/owner of lorry bearing Reg.no.RJ-19/GB-2504. While on duty on 25.01.2014 at about 9:00 a.m. unloading marble stones in front of house of Dr.Nitin Thakur’s house, Kalaburagi, one of marble stones fell on his chest. Due to same, Mohammed Ismail died on spot. Alleging loss of dependency on account of untimely death, his wife and children filed application under Section 10 of Workmen’s Compensation Act.

4. Despite service of notice, owner/employer did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Only Insurer filed objections, not only denying age, occupation and income of deceased, but also relationship with respondent no.5 as employee and employer and occurrence of incident during course of employment and out of employment.

5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded findings. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 6. Insurer examined its official as RW-1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1. Without proper appreciation, tribunal held relationship as established and that accident occurred during course of employment and out of employment and assessed compensation of Rs.8,54,280/- and held insurer jointly and severely liable to pay compensation with interest at 12% p.a. Aggrieved, present appeal was filed.

6. It was submitted contents of FIR, compliant and charge sheet marked as Exs.P1 to 3, indicated deceased and Mohammed Gaus, were employed by Dr.Nitin Thakur for unloading marble stones. However, during evidence, claimant sought to improvise by claiming that they were employed by owner of lorry. It was submitted, even Dr.Nitin Thakur was not examined by claimants.

7. In compliant, it was specifically mentioned that on date of accident, deceased was employed by Dr. Nitin Thakur for unloading marble stones for his house. It was further submitted that during cross examination, suggestion was made to PW-1 that deceased was not employee of owner of lorry. Without any specific material to indicate that he was employed by owner of lorry, commissioner was not justified in holding that incident had occurred during course of employment and out of employment and holding insurer liable to pay compensation.

8. Sri B Ali Mohammad and Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for respondent-claimants sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted, tribunal had rightly appreciated material on record and arrived at conclusion on fact about occurrence of death of deceased during course of employment and out of employment. It was submitted admittedly, death was while unloading marble stones from lorry. Act of unloading of marble stones was being carried on under supervision of driver of lorry and same was specifically mentioned in column no.10 of complaint as well as column no.17 of charge sheet. When deceased had expressed apprehension about not being able to unload large marble stone