The court affirmed that the standard of proof in compensation claims is lower, allowing claims based on available evidence, emphasizing the employer-employee relationship and causation in accidental deaths.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

1. All these appeals are filed by the respondent No.2-insurer challenging the award passed by the Labour Commissioner and the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘Labour Commissioner’) in Case Nos.75/2008, 76/2008 and 77/2008 dated 06.09.2010 and award passed in W.C.Nos.68/2010, 70/2010 and 71/2010 decided on 13.03.2012.

2. The Labour Commissioner decided these six cases in two groups. First group is of the year 2008 i.e., Case Nos.75/2008, 76/2008 and 77/2008. These three cases are disposed off by common award dated 06.09.2010 and W.C. Case Nos.68/2010, 70/2010 and 71/2010 were decided by common judgment and award dated 13.03.2012. All these six cases arise out of common accident dated 07.06.2006. Therefore all these appeals are taken up together for disposal.

3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Labour Commissioner.

4. These appeals are admitted to consider following substantial questions of law.

i. Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in holding that there exists relationship of employer and employee between claimants and deceased Siddappa Banger as well as Bhimarao Vajantri with respondent No.1 and during the course of employment the incident had taken place?

ii. Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in holding that death of Bhimarai Vajantri and Siddappa Banger was due to injury sustained in the accident?

5. Above two questions are substantial questions of fact as well as law, which needs to be considered and other questions of law formulated in the appeal memos, which is framed by the Court are on facts. Under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act this Court shall only decide substantial questions of law. Therefore, other questions were not taken up for consideration, since they are question of facts.

6. Brief facts of the case are that; the claimants in M.F.A. No. 20305/2011 (W.C. S.R. No. 75/2008), M.F.A. No. 20304/2011 (W.C. S.R. No. 76/2008), M.F.A. No. 20303/2011 (W.C. S.R. No. 77/2008), deceased Bhimarai Vajanti (his legal heir filed W.C. S.R. No. 68/2010) and Siddappa Banger (his legal heirs filed W.C. S.R. No. 70/2010) and claimant in M.F.A. No. 22985/2012 (W.C. No. 71/2010) were employees of respondent No.1. They were working as a coolie on daily wages as loaders and un-loaders of milk supplied to respondent No.1. They were collecting milk from different milk vendors in and around the villages situated near Gokak and unloading the same to the Dairy of respondent No.1, situated at Gokak. All the claimants are contending that injured claimants as well as the deceased were getting monthly salary of Rs.4,500/- for doing the said work. To discharge the said duties, they were travelling in the milk tempo belonging to respondent No.1. They were residing in different villages and respondent No.1 used to send the said tempo to collect them and thereafter they used to collect the milk. It was their usual work.

7. On an unfortunate day, that is, on 07.06.2006 as usual the injured as well as the deceased Siddappa Banger and Bhimarai Vajantri boarded on the milk tempo bearing registration No.KA-49/181 (for short, “offending vehicle”) belonging to respondent No.1, in discharge of their duties as coolies, to collect the milk. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. At the place of accident, the driver lost control over his vehicle and dashed against a pedestrian lady causing injury to her, and thereafter the vehicle capsized. As a result of which injured claimants as well as deceased Siddappa Banger and Bhimarai Vajantri sustained grievous injuries. The injured as well as the deceased took treatment in different hospitals. It is further contended that Siddappa Banger as well as Bhimarai Vajantri had taken treatment as inpatient for longer period i.e., about 25 to 26 days and it is also contended that as a result of injury, Bhimarai died