MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2020 (ECA)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 28.08.2020, PASSED IN ECA NO.19/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,80,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT P.A., FROM ONE MONTH AFTER THE DATE OF ACCIDENT i.e., 16.11.2016 TILL ITS REALISATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 28.08.2020 passed in E.C.A.No.19/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Hassan (for short, 'Commissioner'), whereby the Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of ₹5,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the claimant. The Commissioner further held respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for payment of the said compensation.

The factual matrix of the case is that one S. Ravi (since deceased) was employed as a Supervisor in a plant operated by respondent No.1. On 16.10.2016, while proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-JS-0977, belonging to respondent No.6, from one plant to another in the course of his employment, he met with an accident at about 12:45 a.m. As a result of the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. On the very same day, an FIR was registered by the jurisdictional police, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the rider of the said motorcycle. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company by filing its statement of objections. The employer also appeared and participated in the proceedings before the Commissioner.

The Commissioner on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. Feeling aggrieved by the same the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company so also the learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.6.

Apart from urging other contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the accident admittedly occurred at 12:45 a.m. on 16.10.2016. It is also the admitted case of respondent No.1 that, although the deceased was employed in its establishment, his working hours were from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Therefore, it was contended that the deceased cannot be said to have been discharging his duties at the relevant point of time, and consequently, the accident cannot be held to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment.

The learned counsel further submitted that, in the cross-examination of RW.1 (the employer), he specifically admitted that if any accident were to occur to an employee after completion of working hours, the same could not be treated as an accident arising in the course of employment. It was argued that, despite such clear evidence on record, the Commissioner failed to properly appreciate and consider these material aspects of the matter while passing the impugned award.

On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside. Accordingly he prays to allow the appeal

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants, while supporting the impugned Judgment and Award, contended that Ex.P8, namely the statement given by respondent No. 1/employer before the police, clearly discloses that the deceased employee was working as a Supervisor and was travelling from the plant situated